Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed with Amendments.

EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE AND UNITED STATES CO-OPERATION.

Mr. Granville: asked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will consider the setting up of an Empire Advisory Council in London and the suggestion for the formation of branches in the Dominion capitals, and invite the co-operation of prominent Dominion journalists, publicists and war correspondents to discuss such questions as the dissemination of news, propaganda, films, wireless talks and co-operation on these subjects with the United States of America?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are fully alive to the importance of co-operation with the Dominions on all matters of publicity. Close contact is maintained for this purpose both at the Dominions Office and at the Ministry of Information with official publicity representatives of the Dominion Governments, and also with representatives of the Dominion Press both individually and through the medium of the Empire Press Union". Similar machinery exists overseas. It is not apparent that there is any demand for the additional machinery suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Granville: In view of the part the Dominions are playing in the Middle East and in other theatres of war, does not

the Under-Secretary think it would strengthen the working of his Department if he had the fullest co-operation of the representatives of the whole of the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Shakespeare: I do not suggest for a moment that the machinery cannot be improved, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there is daily, almost hourly, contact between all the publicity officers of the Departments concerned. I think on the whole the Empire Service, which is a 24-hour continuous service of news and features, is very well done.

Mr. Granville: Will the Under-Secretary give his attention to complaints which have been coming from some Dominions about the paucity of news being received there?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Has the Under-Secretary received any requests from the Dominion Governments stating that the present position could be substantially improved?

Mr. Shakespeare: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHES RATIONING

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many children are large for their age; that in such cases parents have to give coupons for clothing at the adult rate; and whether he will make arrangements for all children under 14 years of age to obtain clothing at a child's coupon rate?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): Arrangements will be made in due course for the issue of extra coupons to growing children who are too big to wear the sizes of clothing to which the lower scale of coupons applies. These arrangements will extend also to children who are older than 14.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade, how many officials are employed upon the clothes rationing scheme, and at what cost in salaries and expenses; and how many of them, men, and women, would otherwise be eligible for war service?

Sir A. Duncan: The staff employed wholly on the clothes rationing scheme consists of 105 men and 135 women. The salary cost is approximately £ 46,000 per


annum. The information asked for in the latter part of the Question will be obtained as soon as possible and will be sent to my hon. Friend.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to working clothes of miners and other industrial workers being coupon-free?

Sir A. Duncan: Arrangements have been made to permit men returning to the pits after a period of absence to obtain the necessary working clothes without the surrender of coupons, against a certificate from a mines manager, countersigned by an inspector of mines. Discussions on the general needs of the mining and other industries are proceeding. In the meantime, certain exemptions of general application have been made and factory inspectors may authorise employers to obtain without coupons garments necessary for the health and safety of their workers.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that pit stockings, in particular, are in great demand at the moment and there is difficulty in getting them?

Sir A. Duncan: I will look into it.

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a reasonable number of clothes coupons to women serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown in order to enable them to take advantage of permission to wear, on appropriate occasions, civilian clothes?

Sir A. Duncan: As explained in a Reply given on 17th June, officers and other ranks on leave will normally be able to use the civilian clothing which they already possess. I regret that the supply position would not permit the issue of coupons for the purchase of new civilian clothing. This must apply to women serving in the Armed Forces as well as to men.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware of the psychological effect of supplying even a small amount of new clothing for women in the Services? Is he not willing to reconsider the position?

Sir A. Duncan: The position has been reconsidered in the light of the supplies available, but at present I am afraid no other reply is possible.

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many coupons are issuable for replacement of total loss of personal clothing and household furnishings?

Sir A. Duncan: In the case of total loss of personal clothing 174 coupons are issued to a man, 161 to a woman, 104 to a boy and 96 to a girl. No allowance is made for household goods, the majority of which are unrationed.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that 95 coupons were recently issued for replacements, may I ask my right hon. Friend what is his Department's definition of girls as compared with women?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO SUPPLIES.

Captain Strickland: asked the President of the Board of Trade, why he is not prepared to consider the rationing of cigarettes and tobacco; and whether, to secure fairer distribution, he will issue an order under which a purchaser can obtain his supply from one source only?

Sir A. Duncan: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, larger quantities of cigarettes and tobacco are now being produced and distributed in this country than ever before. The effect of this and other measures recently taken should be allowed to show themselves before alternative action is considered.

Captain Strickland: Is not the Minister aware of the present difficulty, namely, the retailer having to estimate what sales he is likely to make, and is he further aware that the adoption of such a scheme as is suggested in the Question would do away with those very inconvenient queues and the very unfair distribution which, in spite of the increase in quantities, is taking place?

Sir A. Duncan: The steps being taken at the present time do relate to distribution, and very careful census has been taken of the shift of population with a view to getting larger quantities placed in those areas where they are most needed.

Captain Strickland: Has my right hon. Friend given consideration to the fact that many people are engaged to-day, in the


early morning and late at night, in collecting up cigarettes? Can he give an answer to the latter part of my Question about limiting the power of purchase by a customer to his selected retailer?

Sir A. Duncan: That is one of the steps which is certainly being considered.

Mr. Graham White: Does my right hon. Friend take the view that the best possible thing would be a measure of voluntary rationing?

Sir A. Duncan: It is perfectly clear that a certain amount of voluntary rationing is now taking place. It is obvious, I should think, in a case like tobacco and cigarettes, with such varying needs for different individuals, that compulsory rationing would bring even more problems.

Mr. Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if people gave up two cigarettes a day, there would be plenty for everyone?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC CROCKERY AND HOLLOWARE.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to extend the general licence issued, enabling registered wholesalers to supply to retail shops without restriction up to 30th August of this year, in order to include domestic crockery, holloware tins, buckets and similar articles?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. The general licence to which the hon. Member refers suspends the quota limitation on the supply of certain kinds of clothing, the consumption of which is controlled by rationing. Domestic crockery and holloware are not rationed and the issue of a general licence for these goods would remove all control over their supply and thus defeat the purpose of the Limitation of Supplies Order.

Mr. Macdonald: Has my right hon. Friend's Department received any communication on this question, and is there not some action he could take to deal with the matter?

Sir A. Duncan: If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have particulars, I shall be glad to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TANKS (RELIABILITY).

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether comprehensive technical reports on the reliability of such modern tanks as were used in Libya and Greece, have been furnished to the Ministry of Supply?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): The Ministry of Supply is kept fully and continuously informed by the War Office of all technical reports received from theatres of war on the reliability of our tanks. In addition, an officer was sent specially to the Middle East early this year to investigate any technical difficulties being experienced there with armoured fighting vehicles, and spent two months visiting workshops and units. His report has been of great value to both the War Office and the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Hammersley: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that the tanks now being delivered to the Army have a satisfactory mechanical reliability report?

Captain Margesson: It is asking a good deal for me to express satisfaction, but I can say that tanks are improving, and one hopes that this will continue.

Miss Ward: Has any action been taken on the reports?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir, and improvements made as a result of them.

COMMUNIST MEETING, CHELTENHAM.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, on the evening of 12th July, military police were moving on soldiers who attempted to stop and listen to an orderly meeting in advocacy of Anglo-Soviet unity, held by the Communist party in Cheltenham; and whether, in view of the fact that soldiers are entitled to attend such meetings so long as they play no active part in them, he will cause the local military authorities to be informed of the soldiers' rights, under the King's Regulations, with a view to stopping any further infringement of the men's rights?

Captain Margesson: I have called for a report on this case and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon possible.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that several soldiers, one of them claiming to be a Conservative, have protested very strongly against the treatment they received at this meeting by the military police, who explained they were acting under King's Regulations?

Captain Margesson: I have called for a report to check up those facts.

OFFICERS UNDER ARREST.

Captain John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of altering the Regulation under which an officer under close arrest has to be accompanied at all times by another officer?

Captain Margesson: I am looking into this question.

Captain Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that many officers are prevented from carrying out their normal duties, sometimes for weeks on end, owing to this antiquated Regulation?

Captain Margesson: That is the reason why I am looking into this question.

PAPER ECONOMY.

Captain Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the admitted shortage of paper in the country, he will take steps to see that an economy in the use of paper is made throughout the Army of similar proportions to that now being made in the use of petrol?

Captain Margesson: Since the beginning of the paper shortage, the question of paper consumption in the Army has been kept continuously under review. The question of reducing the number of returns has been the subject of a very thorough investigation, and not only have considerable reductions been made but instructions have been issued that no new return may be called for by any branch in the War Office without reference to the Standing Committee on Army Administration. The size of Army forms has also been reduced, and in many other directions expedients to save paper have been adopted. To illustrate the success of these efforts I may mention that the quarterly tonnage of paper in the form of manuals, Army forms and books delivered by the Stationery Office on War

Office account, has been reduced by about one-third in the last 12 months.

Captain Dugdale: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that returns are called for from every chaplain in the Forces of the number of communicants each month? Does he think that returns such as that are really necessary?

Captain Margesson: That must be a matter of opinion.

Major Vyvyian Adams: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend send the Army Council a three-line whip on this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that 1,141 Army Council instructions were issued during the first six months of this year?

REGIMENTAL FLASHES (PURCHASE TAX).

Captain Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider making a grant to regimental funds to offset the additional expenditure incurred by them in paying Purchase Tax on flashes?

Captain Margesson: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to regimental flashes. The wearing of these by units is optional, and no charge against public funds can be admitted in connection with them.

Captain Dugdale: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, although it may be in theory optional, it is in fact virtually compulsory?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir.

OFFICERS' PAY (INCOME TAX DEDUCTION).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the method of deduction of income tax from officers' pay by the Army Pay Department without reference to basic amounts for net liability; whether he is aware that neither basic nor amount tax able is furnished; and whether he will issue orders to stop this deduction, and to ensure that all proper allowances and relief are to be given to every officer, and that the Pay Department should render a statement in each case giving credit for all proper deductions that can be made before tax is leviable before they reduce the amount?

Captain Margesson: The arrangements for the deduction of Income Tax from pay of Army officers are based on the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Under that Act the tax is deductible from pay on issue, and in practice the liability for the year is collected in twelve approximately even monthly instalments ending in March. The instalments taken at the beginning of the tax year are provisionally based on tax tables which take into account the personal and family reliefs to which an officer is entitled. These tables are published for the information of the Army. When the individual income return of the officer has been examined and certified, the instalment is revised and he receives a notice of assessment which shows his actual net liability for the year. If any officer feels that the provisional deductions of tax are excessive, his case may be specially considered with a view to an appropriate adjustment.

OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War on what basis the various items of an officer's tropical uniform are assessed; and whether he will consider increasing the present grant of £10?

Captain Margesson: The rates of outfit allowance in the case of officers who have to provide themselves with tropical kit are at present under examination.

NATIONAL FLOUR.

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the extent to which the national loaf and national flour are used in the feeding of the Army?

Captain Margesson: Arrangements are being made for at least 25 per cent. of the bread supplied to the Army to be made from the new national flour, and this percentage will be gradually increased as existing stocks of white flour are used up.

Sir S. Reed: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman direct his attention to the advertisement of the Ministry of Food in the papers to-day, and will he ask officers to use their efforts to increase the use of this excellent loaf?

Captain Margesson: I have said that we are already using 25 per cent, of

national flour, and that amount will be increased as the stocks of white flour decrease.

MILITIA CAMPS (COST).

20. Major Maxwell Fyfe: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the final cost of the Militia camp programme against the estimated cost of £21,000,000?

Captain Margesson: The report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the 1939 Army Account shows that against the Estimate of £ 20,000,000 for militia accommodation, including militia camps, presented to the House in July, 1939, me expenditure brought to account up to December, 1940, was of the order of £ 22,750,000 and that a comparatively small amount remains for final settlement. I am glad of the opportunity which my hon. and gallant Friend's Question gives me of again drawing attention to this fact, since statements continue to be made in the Press and elsewhere that the cost of militia camps was £ 80,000,000. This figure is based, I believe, on a misinterpretation of the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and has no foundation in fact. In this connection I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) on 6th May.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many camps were covered by the actual expenditure of £ 22,000,000 odd and how many were included in the first estimate? Otherwise the figures completely mislead the House.

Captain Margesson: I have not those figures by me.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make a statement on the recruitment of women auxiliaries for the Land Army in Scotland; whether a satisfactory proportion of farmers in Scotland is applying for this type of harvest labourers; and is he satisfied that Scottish farmers are aware of this source of harvest labour?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The vital importance


of securing this year's harvest makes it imperative that all available labour will be used. Among the volunteers to assist in the gathering of the harvest are 650 women who have enrolled as an auxiliary force to the regular Women's Land Army. Applications by farmers for assistance at harvest time from these women auxiliaries should be sent at once to the local Agricultural Committees who will allocate the volunteers available in the neighbourhood according to priority of application, etc. So far comparatively few applications have been received for the services of these volunteers, but I am taking every step possible to bring the matter to the urgent attention of the farming community.

Mr. McNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the steps, consider making a personal broadcast to farmers dealing with all types of available harvest labour?

Mr. Johnston: I will consider that, but there is a large number of available channels for harvest labour in addition to women auxiliaries.

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the provision of suitable accommodation for women of the Land Army and others who are engaged on work on the land; and whether, where accommodation is limited, he has considered the hiring of caravans?

Mr. Johnston: Farmers who employ members of the Women's Land Army must themselves in the first instance make definite efforts to provide suitable accommodation for them as well as for other agricultural workers, if possible in the farm premises or in nearby lodgings, but failing this by utilising caravans or similar vehicles or huts. If suitable arrangements cannot thus be made by the farmers in an area, hostels are being provided at convenient centres and I am certainly prepared to supplement these hostels where necessary by caravans and the local agricultural committees will be glad to have particulars of any caravans available.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these caravans are provided with keys which the girls can have so as to assure reasonable privacy?

Mr. Johnston: Certainly, Sir.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that some practical women are consulted about accommodation in the hostels?

Mr. Johnston: That is already provided for. There are women officers attached to all the agricultural district committees.

BILLETED CHILDREN (PAYMENT DEMAND).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Mr. Bowman, who lost four members of his family in an air raid, has received from the public assistance department of Clydebank a demand for the payment of 4s. 6d. per week for billeting his remaining children, together with a demand for the payment of £8 2s. arrears; and whether he will look into this case with a view to relieving Mr. Bowman who has suffered such grievous loss?

Mr. Johnson: I am having inquiries made regarding this case, and I will communicate with the hon. Member in the course of a day or so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARAFFIN (RURAL AREAS).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether he can take any steps to secure a more equitable distribution of paraffin through country districts as many villages find difficulty in obtaining a. regular and adequate supply for cooking and lighting?

Mr. Lloyd: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys) on the 17th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir A. Knox: Are any active steps being taken to improve the distribution? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many villages depend on paraffin for lighting and heating?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no intention of permitting the unnecessary use of paraffin.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINE ACCIDENTS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal and serious


accidents, respectively, during the six months ended 30th June; and the various causes of the accidents.

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): As the Answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures show an increase or a decrease over last year?

Mr. Grenfell: There is a decrease of one in fatal accidents and a decrease of nearly 200 in serious accidents.

Following is the statement:

Number of persons killed and seriously injured* by accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act in the 26 weeks ended 28th June, 1941.


Place or Cause.
Number of Persons.


Killed.
Seriously Injured.*


Falls of Ground:—




(a) At the face
241
614


(b) On the roads
32
71


Haulage and Transport 
97
363


Gases, Coal Dust and Fires:—





(a) Explosions.
28
51


(b) Others
8
5


Machinery
3
25


Others, Underground
25
178


Surface
42
163


Total 
476
1,470


*Injuries which, because of their nature or severity are, under the terms of Section 80 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, required to be reported to His Majesty's Divisional Inspectors at the time of their occurrence.

WORKERS' HOLIDAYS.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the varying policies adopted in the coalfields towards holidays, he will make an authoritative statement as to the policy which His Majesty's Government have decided shall be pursued?

Mr. Grenfell: Since the beginning of April I have made it clear to the district Production committees, representing both owners and men in each colliery district, that in the opinion of the Government the needs of the country demanded that mining holidays this summer, including both Easter and Whitsun, should be limited to six days in all. A month ago,

in view of the slow progress being made in increasing output, both the Coal Production Council of my Department and I myself made a further appeal that the usual week's holiday with pay, if taken at all this year, should be deferred until the Autumn, only the Bank Holiday, and perhaps the previous Saturday, being taken in August. I do not think therefore that it can be said that the industry lacks authoritative guidance in this matter.

Miss Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Labour announced, quite rightly, that holidays ought to be taken by all the industrial community, and will he see that an authoritative statement is carried out by the districts, if necessary, in view of the fact that a great many of the miners' federations in various districts are disregarding the advice given by his Department?

Mr. Grenfell: I am not responsible for announcements made by any other Department. I can only speak on behalf of my own, and we are conveying to the local committees our wishes on this matter.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that the general practice of the officials of the collieries is to take their full holidays?

Mr. Grenfell: I am not commenting on the behaviour of either men or officials; I am simply saying what the request of my Department was.

Captain Lyons: Is it not a fact that the whole situation in relation to output depends on man-power? Is not my hon. Friend's difficulty that he has not complete control of man-power, and will he take steps to take that control?

Mr. Grenfell: I do not think that I can be charged with being vague on that point. I have been perfectly clear on it over and over again.

Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who are most concerned with the miners having a few days' holiday are those who can take holidays whenever they like?

OUTPUT.

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is satisfied with the production of coal from the Scottish pits in view of the coal shortage on Clyde side;


and whether he is satisfied that all concerned with the production of coal in Scotland are co-operating to get the maximum output at the present time, and are following the example of their Engish and Welsh confrères with regard to holidays?

Mr. Grenfell: As long as the output of coal in this country is not sufficient to enable us to build up such stocks as would remove any risk of shortage next winter, I cannot say I am satisfied. Indeed there is no district in the country where with the full co-operation of all concerned the output could not be materially increased. At the same time I would like to express my appreciation of the efforts which so many in the industry, owners, managements and men, are making to meet the nation's needs under difficult conditions of lack of man-power, food rationing and restricted supply of materials. On the general question of holidays I would refer to my answer of to-day to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward).

Mr. Sloan: Is my hon. Friend aware that stupid Questions like this appearing on the Order Paper—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not comment on other Members' Questions.

Mr. Sloan: On a point of Order. Will my hon. Friend state whether the miners in Scotland have taken more holidays—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether he will have inquiries made as to the amount of petrol being wasted in motor-craft on the Thames, in motor-cars of people who motor to London every day when there is a good train service, and in joy-riding during week-ends at country and riverside hotels; and will he take the necessary action to withdraw petrol coupons used for these purposes?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The amount of petrol issued to motor-craft has been drastically rationed since the outbreak of the war, and the ration has recently been still

further reduced. The use of supplementary rations for daily long-distance journeys to London where other means of transport are available, or for pleasure purposes, is a contravention of the conditions under which supplementary rations are issued, and will be dealt with as such.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my hon. Friend, in order to save shipping space, take the necessary steps to tighten up the control of petrol not used for essential services?

Mr. Lloyd: I announced a short time ago the balanced policy which the Government are adopting of enforcing strictly the use of supplementary rations for the purposes for which they are given, but at the same time, in the basic ration, leaving a certain small quantity of petrol within the free discretion of the user.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should my hon. Friend permit the use of petrol for small motor-craft for pleasure purposes? Surely that is something we can do without.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are many considerations which have to be borne in mind. I would like to tell the House that a number of these craft, because they were in commission at- the time of the emergency, played an extremely useful part in the evacuation of Dunkirk.

Mr. Shinwell: If they are wanted for use for military purposes, cannot that be arranged?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether he has considered the desirability of abolishing completely the present basic petrol allowance after the current quarter or licensing period, in view of the assistance this would afford to the police and other inspecting authorities in checking abuse of supplementary allowances?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend's suggestion has been carefully considered, but having regard to the useful purposes served by the basic ration, the Government are of the opinion that it would not, in present circumstances, be in the public interest to abolish it.

Mr. Walkden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the misuse of petrol at such events as dog-racing and Derby-day racing could have been avoided if the basic rations were eliminated?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I deprecate the heresy-hunting of motorists on every occasion. The proper policy is to issue a supplementary ration and to continue the great public benefit which is conferred by the possession of a certain amount of petrol within the free disposition of the users.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received a report from a ship-owner about 27 men who have been lost in the open sea off an oil tanker? Is that sort of thing good enough?

Viscountess Astor: Is it really conducive to fighting the war for people of all sorts at the week-end to be going slowly up and down the Thames in motor-boats?

Captain Lyons: asked the Secretary for Petroleum, in what circumstances, and subject to what restrictions, can motorcars now be privately hired with use of petrol; and what additional supply of petrol is available with the hiring, and subject to what control or restriction is it to be obtained?

Mr. Lloyd: The hire car is subject to a maximum ration, including both basic and supplementary, according to horse power, and the number of cars which may draw the hire car ration is limited. The supplementary ration has recently been reduced, and the basic will also be reduced in the next ration period. Within the limits of petrol thus allowed, the hire car proprietor allocates his available mileage among his various customers and types of business.

Captain Lyons: Does my hon. Friend realise that that means that a person can hire a car and use petrol without accounting for it; that there is no check upon the petrol used, so that any person who pays for petrol can use it and waste it; and that this has gone on during the whole time that petrol has been rationed?

Mr. Lloyd: As one of the measures which I recently announced, a conference is taking place between private car hirers and my Department to see whether we can reduce and, if possible, eliminate abuse in this connection. The House will appreciate that any solution which has to be adopted must have as its object the prevention of abuse and, at the same time, the avoidance of the withdrawal of an extremely useful public service.

Captain Lyons: Can there be no control on the purposes for which an individual may hire a car and use petrol? Otherwise, in spite of a dozen conferences, this abuse will go on.

Mr. Lloyd: We do not, in order to prevent a small abuse, wish to interfere with an important public service.

Oral Answers to Questions — DAMAGED HOUSES (RENTS, CROWN LANDS).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether consideration has been given to the rents charged by the Commissioners of Crown Lands in respect of dwelling-houses partly uninhabitable through enemy action; and, if so, what reductions it is proposed to make?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The Commissioners of Crown Lands are bound by the Landlord and Tenant legislation relating to War Damage, and provision is made in the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, for cases where dwelling-houses are "unfit" but part of them are capable of beneficial occupation. In such cases, the Commissioners have in several instances agreed rents with their tenants without reference to the Court. The amount of the rent, of course, depends upon the circumstances of each case.

Sir T. Moore: Did my right hon. Friend notice that in the Question I said, "partly uninhabitable," because, as he knows, there are many houses in which the windows have been knocked out so completely that it is not feasible to replace them; and does he think it right that people should be paying for amenities and facilities which do not exist?

Mr. Hudson: I should like to have particulars of the cases which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. In my own house the windows have been blown out three times, and I have replaced them and still pay the rent.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

EELS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is a large supply of eels that can be trapped in English rivers; and whether


he has taken the initiative to provide any district of England, where fish is scarce, with this additional food supply, or is he working to that end with the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Hudson: I am well aware that there are eels in abundance to be had for the taking throughout England and Wales and, from the outbreak of war, my Department has been active in promoting fishing for eels. Demonstrations on the use of a Dutch pattern of fixed net, hitherto practically unknown here, were carried out last year and are still continuing this year in various parts of the country. In addition every opportunity has been taken of advising owners of weirs provided with racks to bring the racks into repair in order to exploit the supply from this source to the full. The practicability of establishing regular silver eel fisheries on a commercial scale on certain rivers is at present under consideration.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Can my right hon. Friend say whether an estimate has been made by his Department of the additional food that could be obtained in this way with Government assistance, and if so what it is?

Mr. Hudson: In pre-war days we were large importers of eels, and I should hope that if full advantage is taken of the advice and assistance that my Department is giving we shall be able to make good a very large proportion of that pre-war supply.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS WORKERS.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take into consideration the necessity of providing meals for air-raid precautions workers engaged on night shifts; and whether preferential treatment can be extended to air-raid precautions canteens, in view of the strain which workers engaged in this service undergo?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The Answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question is in the affirmative. Air-raid precautions canteens registered as catering establishments receive supplies of rationed foods in accordance with an approved

scale of allowances. In answer to the second part, these canteens have been granted priority in the supplies of certain manufactured foodstuffs. The list of the articles in respect of which such priority is accorded is under revision and the special needs of air-raid precautions canteens will be borne in mind in this connection.

Sir P. Hannon: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend received any complaints from Birmingham that people on night shifts cannot get hot meals in the morning?

Major Lloyd George: The matter has been called to my attention and is now under investigation.

SMALL TRADERS.

Captain Profumo: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the hardship to many small shopkeepers if they are denied supplies unless they have at least 25 registered customers, he will, to help economy in transport, consider a scheme of delivering supplies to each town to a central depot from where each small retailer may collect his supplies; and, in view of the unfairness of eliminating all bona fide small retailers because a few take advantage of the position to register as a retailer for the purpose of supplying their own families, whether opportunity will be given to each retailer to establish his bona fides and have his case for receiving supplies judged on its merits?

Major Lloyd George: The arrangements suggested in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, while they might result in some saving of transport, would not in any way reduce the labour involved to traders in breaking bulk, packing, invoicing and delivering, nor the clerical work in the food offices in issuing buying permits. My Noble Friend is, however, anxious to do whatever is practicable to avoid inflicting hardship on any bona fide food trader, and he has therefore already issued to food control committees instructions to the effect that both in town and country districts registration below the 25 minimum should not be automatically transferred to other retailers and that before action is taken in this direction consideration should be given both to the convenience of the consumers and to the hardship of individual small traders.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that instructions have already been given out, or are about to be given out, ordering registered customers at these small shops to register elsewhere? That is information supplied by the Department. Should not the whole matter be held up?

Major Lloyd George: The new instructions will make my hon. Friend's suggestion possible.

Mr. Baxter: What discretion is used? The whole thing is most unsatisfactory and unjust. Is there not a tendency for the Government to punish the individual and to throw trade and business into the hands of the multiple shops and the great combines?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend will read my Answer, he will see that steps have already been taken to avoid hardship in individual cases.

Mr. Graham White: Would not my right hon. and gallant Friend look at this matter from the point of view of the morale of the people, and bear in mind that transactions of this kind have more effect upon the people's morale than being bombed out?

Major Lloyd George: I would ask my hon. Friend to read my answer. Discretion has already been given to food control committees in both town and country districts.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is not the right hon. and gallant Member aware that a tremendous amount of hardship is caused to people, and would it not be better to prevent it than to take action after the harm has been done?

Major Lloyd George: We want to avoid hardship, but it is not easy not to take some measures to alter the present situation when we need to save transport.

Captain Profumo: Do we understand that the Ministry are prepared to approach this matter from a different angle and will endeavour to jump their fences without kicking down so many people?

Captain Strickland: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the possibility of establishing central depots from which small shopkeepers might collect?

Major Lloyd George: I would again call attention to the terms of my answer

from which it is clear that the bona fide trader is meant. Many of these people are not bona fide traders, but merely wish to obtain rationed food for their families at wholesale prices.

Mr. Baxter: In view of the still unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

ONIONS.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has now put into effect his scheme to control the price of salad, spring or young onions?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. As announced in the Press last week an Order came into force on 21st July prescribing maximum prices for green (or salad) onions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACE MEETINGS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who allocates the various race meetings in this country, and on what basis they are allocated; why Nottingham, a privately-owned concern, has about 24 days racing a year, whilst Lincoln, 30 miles away, which is municipally-owned and controlled, has only two days, and Doncaster, York and Brighton, other municipally-owned courses, have no fixtures; and whether he will reconsider this policy with a view to granting a lower percentage of the permitted fixtures to privately-owned concerns?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): The allocation of race meetings is made by the Jockey Club, subject to the approval of His Majesty's Government, and is governed by special factors arising out of war conditions, in particular military needs and the needs of transport and production. The number of days' racing allotted to Nottingham during the current year is 14. I am writing to my hon. Friend as regards the other places named.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the hon. Member say why Nottingham has been selected in preference to other places?

Mr. Mabane: It would not be in the national interest to indicate the reason why this or that place is chosen rather than any other.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether we can welcome the questioner as an advocate of nationalisation?

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.

Sir Robert Bird: asked the Home Secretary what was the aggregate of the moneys accruing to the Welsh Church Commission derived from Welsh ecclesiastical property, vested in them under the Welsh Church Act, for the years 1920, 1930 and 1940, respectively; and what were the establishment charges of the commission for these same years, respectively?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures which he asks for in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Period from 31st March, 1920 (date of Disestablishment), to 31st December, 1920.


Receipts.
£
Payments.
£


Interest and Dividends
…
3,536
Salaries
…
…
…
…
…
5,018


Rents
…
…
…
…
8,086
Law Charges and Incidentals
…
…
633


Tithe
…
…
…
…
69,411
Travelling, Postages, Printing and Stationery, and Office Accommodation
…
…
…
…
…
1,230


Total Receipts
…
…
81,033
Total Establishment Charges
…
6,881

Period from 1st January, 1921, to 31st December, 1921.


Receipts.
£
Payments.
£


Interest and Dividends
…
3,206
Salaries
…
…
…
…
…
9,547


Rents
…
…
…
…
37,586
Law Charges and Incidentals
…
…
830


Tithe
…
…
…
…
223,526
Travelling, Postages, Printing and Stationery, and Office Accommodation
…
…
…
…
…
2,646


Total Receipts
…
…
264,218
Total Establishment Charges
…
13,023

Period from 1st January, 1930, to 31st December, 1930.


Receipts.
£
Payments.
£


Interest and Dividends
…
5,422
Salaries
…
…
…
…
…
10,290


Rents
…
…
…
…
29,137
Law Charges and Incidentals
…
…
1,050


Tithe and Tithe Annuities
…
220,354
Travelling, Postages, Printing and Stationery, and Office Accommodation
…
…
…
…
…
1,535


Profit on Sale of Investments
…
405
Stationery, and Office Accommodation
…
…
…
…
…
1,535


Total Receipts
…
…
255,318
Total Establishment Charges
…
12,875

Period from 1st January, 1940, to 31st December, 1940.


Receipts.
£
Payments.
£


Interest and Dividends
…
62,879
Salaries
…
…
…
…
…
7,550


Rents
…
…
…
…
18,805
Gratuity to wife of late Secretary
…
1,500


Tithe (Arrears) and Tithe Annuities
…
…
…
…
5,801
Law Charges and Incidentals
…
…
4,260


Income Tax Repayments under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1918
…
…
…
17,958
Travelling, Postages, Printing and Stationery, and Office Accommodation Stationery and Office Accommodation
…
…
…
…
…
1,642


Profit on Sale of Investments
…
1,476
Total Establishment Charges
…
14,952


Total Receipts
…
…
106,919

…
…
…
…
…

Colonel Arthur Evans: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the figures relating to 1940 and say whether he is satisfied with the establishment charges this year?

Mr. Peake: The statement I am circulating contains a good deal of detailed information, rather more than my hon. Friend asked for, and I think it would be better if my hon. and gallant Friend saw the figures in detail before asking further Questions.

Following are the figures:

The following are the receipts and establishment charges of the Welsh Church Commission for the years 1920, 1921, 1930 and 1940, respectively. The figures for 1920 are for nine months only, as the Act came into force on 31st March. Accordingly as 1920 is not a good year for comparative purposes, figures for 1921 have also been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMB-FILLING OFFENCE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can given any information in connection with the case of two men, charged with putting water in bombs, tried at a North-west of England court on Wednesday last.

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. It appears that two men who were employed in a filling process had a bomb returned to them after inspection as being under weight. To make up the deficiency in weight they put some water into the bomb without apparently realising how serious might be the consequence of such action. They pleaded guilty to an offence against Defence Regulation 2B and were both sentenced to three months' hard labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMOUFLAGE.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that one of the most distinguished authorities on the biological principles of camouflage is now in His Majesty's service; and whether he will give the House the assurance that the person in question will be placed in such a position that the Fighting Services shall be able to obtain full advantage of his special knowledge as well as of his special skill as a lecturer and practical teacher?

Mr. Mabane: I am informed that the gentleman to whom I presume my hon. Friend refers has been in the Army for over six months. Any Questions in regard to his future employment should therefore be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANALS AND INLAND WATER-WAYS (MR. PICK'S REPORT).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, whether he proposes to put in the Vote Office the report of Mr. Frank Pick?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): No, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: Why not?

Colonel Llewellin: Mr. Frank Pick was employed as a member of the Department and is still being employer] as such, and it is unusual when a return is made within the Department to publish it. That is the main reason why it is not published.

Mr. Thorne: Surely the right hon. and gallant Member must know that Members of this House are very much interested in the waterways of this country?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, and quite rightly so. We are carrying out a substantial part of the recommendations and Mr. Pick is helping us to do it, and I shall be delighted on a future occasion to explain what it is that we are doing.

Mr. Thorne: What good will the report be if it is tucked away in your Department and nobody can see it?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

FACTORIES (SPEAKERS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether it is the intention of the Government to discontinue in factories the making of political speeches and to encourage speeches by serving officers describing the usefulness in action of the articles being made by the workers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): Speakers employed by the Government do not make political speeches either in factories or anywhere else. While I am fully aware of the excellent effects of speeches made in factories by serving officers, I would remind the hon. Member that there is a limit to the number of such officers who can be spared from their regular duties. Civilian speakers are accordingly indispensable.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the Minister of Aircraft Production has announced his intention of adopting the practice mentioned in my Question, would my hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to introduce it into all Departments of the Government?

Mr. Thurtle: I can give the hon. Member an assurance that it is not proposed to introduce it in the Ministry of Information.

"V" CAMPAIGN.

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider the setting up of a special "V" department of political warfare to co-operate with the allied Governments and the Soviet information bureau, for the purpose of fostering anti-Nazi and anti-Quisling propaganda in the occupied territories; and further, whether he will consider the regular use of the morse letter "V" as the time signal for all foreign broadcasts?

Mr. Thurtle: My right hon. Friend does not think that additional machinery is required to achieve the purpose the hon. Member has in view. As regards the second part of the Question, the "V" morse signal has already been introduced as the interval signal for the European Service of the B.B.C.

Mr. Granville: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the "V" campaign abroad may be the best opportunity we have had of smashing the Goebbels propaganda machine on the Continent; and can he say whether there is the closest co-operation between the Russian Information Bureau, Allied Governments and the Ministry of Information, and whether Colonel Britton has full power and authority to make this campaign a success?

Mr. Thurtle: I am afraid I am not in a position to give an answer to the detailed points made by the hon. Member, but I can assure him that the Ministry is fully sympathetic to this "V" campaign, which it regards as a sort of "Lift up your heart" signal to the oppressed peoples of Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (GARDENERS).

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give sympathetic consideration to those cases in which working gardeners are being called up for military service where their continued employment is essential to the success of extended food production which has been undertaken, and where the services of women war workers are not available?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): Market garden workers are at present reserved under the Schedule of Reserved Occupations at the age of 21. This age

will be raised to 25, probably in October next. Under arrangements agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, other working gardeners will not be called up if they had reached the age of 30 at the time of their registration for military service, provided that they are employed whole time on food production and, in general, that the area devoted to food production in the garden in which they are so employed, is not less than three acres. This arrangement includes gardeners in private employment where the agricultural executive committee of the area certify that substitution by older men or women is impracticable. In exceptional cases, gardeners under 30 at the time of registration, who fulfil the conditions necessary for reservation above that age, may have their calling up deferred for a limited period.

Sir P. Hannon: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, will he consider exceptional cases which arise before the modification of the Order in October?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I think that in exceptional cases provision is already made for deferment of calling-up if the case can be made out.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is there nobody in my hon. Friend's office who knows the difference between the words "substitution" and "replacement?"

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICE STABILISATION AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY.

Major Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister when the Government expect to be in a position to announce a policy of wage stabilisation; and to which Minister Questions concerning wage rate should be put?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): A statement by the Government on price stabilisation and industrial policy is being issued to-day in the form of a White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office at the end of Questions. As regards the second part of the Question, such Questions should in general, be addressed to the Minister of Labour.

Major Lloyd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that The Minister of Labour definitely stated that he has no


responsibility for wages rates and whether it is of much use asking the Minister of Labour questions about wage rates when he carries no responsibility?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS CONFERENCES (MINISTERS' SPEECHES).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that Ministers of the Crown will not address Press conferences on matters upon which they have recently addressed the House in Secret Session?

Mr. Attlee: No such assurance can be given. The public interest may require that a Minister should address a Press conference at any time, but, in so doing, he would be giving an account of his own views and would not, of course, be referring to anything that had passed in Secret Session, to which no reference may be made.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that a Minister is not permitted, at a Press conference on the day after a Secret Session, to mention anything that he mentioned in the Secret Session?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. Because a Member or a Minister has made a statement in Secret Session he is naturally not precluded, if he thinks it right, from repeating that statement upon another occasion. He is barred only from referring to what was done in Secret Session or to statements made by other Ministers. Obviously it would be impossible to carry on a Secret Session if every Member were bound never again to repeat anything that he said in it.

Sir H. Williams: While thanking my right honourable Friend for his reply, may I take it that he realises the great injustice caused to Pressmen in reporting Press conferences on the day after a Secret Session, by being summoned to appear before the Committee of Privileges of this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister without Portfolio, the arrangements made by his Department for the investigation of problems that will arise at the peace conference, including peace aims, together with the names of the members of the committee undertaking this work?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Preliminary studies are being made of the international aspects of the reconstruction survey which I am undertaking in collaboration with the Departments concerned. There is no special committee dealing with this work.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave a long list the other day of persons who were studying another problem, and as a number of persons are obviously studying this problem, will he indicate who they are?

Mr. Greenwood: The Question which I answered last week was in regard to an institution over which I have no direct control.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

HOME-GROWN SUGAR (SUBSIDY).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of Excise Duty on home-grown sugar during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1941; and the amount of subsidy paid during that period to the British Sugar Corporation?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): With regard to the first part of the Question, I do not think that it is in the national interest to publish these figures. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade on 21st January last. The amount of the payment due for the period in question has not yet been computed.

AMERICAN VISCOSE CORPORATION.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government or the shareholders of Courtaulds, Limited, will be expected to bear the sum of approximately 8,000,000 dollars paid in commission and expenses on the sale of the American Viscose Company?

Sir K. Wood: The expenses form a deduction from the amount receivable by the Treasury in respect of the issue to the public. The amount payable to


Messrs. Courtaulds, Limited, is to be settled by agreement, or failing agreement, by arbitration.

Mr. Stokes: Does that answer mean that the Government will bear the cost of this transaction, and were Messrs. Courtaulds consulted before the rate was decided upon?

Sir K. Wood: Messrs. Courtaulds will, as I have stated, receive the amount payable to them either by agreement with us or, if agreement is not reached, by arbitration.

Mr. Stokes: Were they consulted?

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. STOKES:

"51. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the underwriting commission of 7½ per cent., arranged by the Treasury on the sale of the American Viscose Company, compares with underwriting commission normally paid in the country? "

Mr. Stokes: There is a mistake in this Question. The last three words should read "in this country."

Sir K. Wood: I am answering the Question as it appears on the Order Paper. The underwriting and selling commission on the sale of American Viscose shares, which was $ 4,099,200, is 6.58 per cent. of the gross selling price. I am advised that it is customary in New York to relate underwriting and selling commission to the sale price and that the commission in this case does not compare unfavourably with commissions normally paid in the country.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Chancellor state how that rate compares with the rates normally paid on such a transaction in this country?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot say, but I should think it is higher than those.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the decision of the American authorities to insist on a refund to the British Treasury of 1,000,000 dollars on account of excessive commission and expenses in connection with the sale of the American Viscose Company?

Sir K. Wood: I have no information about any such decision. No refund was

made, but, as already stated, the participation of the Syndicate in the net proceeds of the issue, was voluntarily reduced by them from a 10 per cent. to a 5 per cent. basis, resulting in an increase of $946,817 in the amount received by the Treasury.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not clear from the reports that the American company themselves were dissatisfied with this transaction, and is it not a pity that Sir Edward Peacock did not seek their aid in a transaction in which he has obviously been coerced by the Americans?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I cannot accept that.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the public interest and apprehension which exists in regard to the American Viscose deal in this country, and, in particular, among the 80,000 ordinary shareholders in Courtaulds, Limited, he will consider laying on the Table of the House the United States regulations, filed under the United States law, with the Securities Exchange Com mission.

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served thereby.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that these regulations are equivalent to a British company's prospectus, and in view of the fact that this document is available to the U.S.A., namely, Morgan Stanley and Co. and Associated Bankers, can he give any reason why it should not be laid on the Table, and does he not consider that it is only equitable and reasonable that it should be?

Sir K. Wood: No, I do not think so, for the reason I mentioned just now.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the offer of American Viscose shares held by Courtaulds, Limited, made on 20th May, included the liquid assets, namely, cash in hand and lying on deposit in the banks, 10,000,000 dollars, market securities valued at 26,000,000 dollars, and stocks valued 13,000,000 dollars?

Sir K. Wood: The purchase and resale were not of the assets of the corporation,


which remain in the possession of the corporation, but of the greater part of the shares. In the case of any company the value of the shares is determined by an amalgam of considerations, including the value of the company's assets, both liquid and otherwise.

Sir F. Sanderson: Am I to understand that for all practical purposes the substantial commission has been paid on what is the equivalent of dollars lying in the banks in the U.S.A. in the form of actual dollars and the equivalent, namely, market securities, which in effect means they were simply transferred from one account to another, and does my right hon. Friend consider that it is either equitable or just that commission should have been paid upon those liquid assets?

Sir K. Wood: I do not regard that as a fair statement.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Chancellor whether he means that? [Interruption.] On a point of Order. I wish to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of these replies, I shall raise the matter of the American Viscose Corporation on the Adjournment at the earliest convenient opportunity.

REQUISITIONED LAND (COMPENSATION TO FARMERS).

Sir Hugh O'Neill: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the compensation payable to fanners whose land is requisitioned for military purposes, is limited to the pre-war rental value; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to remove this limitation?

Sir K. Wood: The compensation payable under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, in respect of a requisitioned farm, includes the rent that would be paid by a tenant inoccupation of the land under a lease granted immediately before the requisition, no account being taken of any appreciation in values due to the emergency. No compensation is payable in respect of loss of profits, but increases in rental values since the war are payable unless they are due to the war. I should not be prepared to introduce legislation to provide that compensation shall take account of profits arising out of the war.

INFLATION.

57. Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he

is aware of the inflationary tendencies now becoming evident, and, in particular, of the high level of wages in contrast with the low rates of pay for other ranks in the Navy and Army; and whether he proposes any measures to arrest those tendencies and to modify these disparities of pay?

Sir K. Wood: The policy of the Government with regard to inflation was stated in my Budget speech and has been further explained in the White Paper to which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has referred in his answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd).

Major Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is no answer to the second part of this Question, and does he think it socially satisfactory that adolescents in factories should receive several times as much as adult men in the Services, who are voiceless, even taking into consideration the allowances which men in the Services enjoy?

Sir K. Wood: Will my hon. Friend look at the White Paper issued to-day?

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to show him letters I have received from men in the Services telling me how they feel about these disparities?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN WAR EFFORT (ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES).

Earl Winterton: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government are contemplating any measure to associate Indians more closely with the conduct of the Indian war effort?

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: On a point of Order. The next Question on the Order Paper deals with India. Is it not your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that a Private Notice Question should not be put when the next Question on the Order Paper deals with the same subject? I ask because the Noble Lord himself is such a stickler for procedure.

Earl Winterton: On that point of Order. In justice to myself, I must say that I was asked by the Secretary of State for India to put this Question.

Mr. Speaker: The Question which the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has on the Paper would require a different


answer from the one which the Noble Lord raises. Consequently, it is a different Question. I considered that point before this Question was allowed.

Earl Winterton: Further to the point of Order. I gave my explanation, in answer to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). It is a common practice of this House that when it is convenient to do so Ministers should ask Private Members to ask Questions, and it is only fair that those who are asked to do so should explain themselves.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The following announcement is being issued to-day by the Governor-General, with the approval of His Majesty's Government:

"As a result of the increased pressure of work in connection with the war it has been decided to enlarge the Executive Council of the Governor-General of India in order to permit the separation of the portfolios of Law and Supply and of Commerce and Labour and the division of the present portfolios of Education, Health and Lands into separate portfolios of Education, Health and Lands and Indians Overseas, and also the creation of portfolios of Information and of Civil Defence. His Majesty the King has approved the following appointments to the five new seats on the Council:

Member for Supply: Sir Hormusji Peroshaw Mody.

Member for Information: The Right Hon. Sir Akbar Hydari.

Member for Civil Defence: Mr. E. Raghavendra Rao.

Member for Labour: Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon.

Member for Indians Overseas: Mr. Madhao Shrihari Aney.

For the vacancies which will occur when Sir Muhummad Zafrullah Khan and Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai take up the posts to which they have recently been appointed, His Majesty has approved the following appointments:

Law Member: Sir Syed Sultan Ahmed.

Member for Education, Health and Lands: Mr. Nalini Ranjan Sarker.

In pursuance of the desire of His Majesty's Government to associate Indian

non-official opinion as fully as possible with the prosecution of the war, approval on the recommendation of the Viceroy has also been given to the establishment of a National Defence Council, the first meeting of which will take place next month. The Council, the strength of which will be about 30 members, will include representatives of the Indian States as well as of the Provinces and of other elements in the national life of British India in its relation to the war effort. The following will be members from British India":

Here follows a list of 22 names. These are given in the White Paper which is now available. They include the Prime Ministers of Bengal, the Punjab, Assam and Sind, and representatives of the other Provinces as well as of the different communities, of commerce, industry and labour. The names of the Indian States members will be announced separately.

Sir H. O'Neill: Arising out of that statement, is it not the case that we should all express our appreciation of the patience exercised by the Viceroy of India as a result of which it has been possible to carry out this enlargement of the Executive Council, and may I ask the Secretary of State for India what exactly would be the function of the National Defence Council?

Mr. Amery: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has said about the infinite patience and tact which the Viceroy has exercised for many months to try and get together a team which will co-operate in the defence of India, and in the interests of India and ourselves in the common cause. We have now succeeded in getting together what I believe to be a most representative and powerful team. As regards the National Defence Council, it is an advisory body whose object is to keep the central Government of India, in its war effort, in the closest possible touch with the different Provinces and their Governments, and the Governments of the Indian States, and with industry, commerce and labour.

Sir H. O'Neill: It has no executive powers?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

Mr. G. Macdonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the limited character of the statement which he made will cause intense disappointment to many


freedom-loving peoples who are anxious to support us in this war, and will he consider making a statement of a wider character in the near future?

Mr. Amery: These are administrative changes, and are calculated to bring all men of good will into closer association with the Government of India. The constitutional policy of His Majesty's Government for the future has already been stated.

Mr. Graham White: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of having a discussion in this House in order that the undoubted good will of the House of Commons towards the Indian people may have free expression in order that the desire for closer collaboration with them in the war effort may be made known? May I ask, because I am not quite clear from his statement, whether he contemplates inviting any Indians to come to this country to co-operate at this end as others have come from the Dominions?

Mr. Amery: The first part of the Question is a matter of Business, which is not within my control. As regards the second part of the Question, it is not at the moment under consideration.

Mr. Sorensen: Has any consultation taken place with Congress or the Moslem League, and are representatives of either of these bodies on the new body which the right hon. Gentleman has envisaged? Will the Viceroy be able to exercise his veto with regard to any decisions which this enlarged Council may reach?

Mr. Amery: For many months the Viceroy conducted negotiations with Congress and the Moslem League with a view to securing complete co-operation. He has now secured the co-operation of many representative men, some of whom are members of the Moslem League, and others of whom have been closely associated with Congress in the past.

Sir S. Reed: May I ask whether the additional members of the Viceroy's Executive Council will act in a departmental capacity, or will they be jointly responsible with the Council as a whole, subject to the constitutional position, for the general policy of the Government of India? May I further ask my right hon. Friend whether he will accept the assur-

ance that the measure which he has announced as an interim measure will have widespread approval and satisfaction among those who desire so ardently to see India more closely associated with the war effort?

Mr. Amery: The new members of the Executive Council will, of course, share the full statutory collective responsibility of the whole Council as well as being responsible for the administration of important Departments of State.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, with regard to the veto of the Viceroy?

Mr. Amery: The powers of the Viceroy under the Constitution remain unchanged.

Earl Winterton: I desire to make a personal statement and to express regret to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) for having put the Question. I did not look at the Order Paper, and I should have done so. The practice I adopted is a common one, and I asked that Question. I offer my apologies.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Has the Secretary of State for India considered the possibility that the changed political situation with regard to Russia may have influenced the attitude of Congress, and has he considered the possibility of making a fresh approach?

Mr. Amery: All these considerations have been borne in mind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): On Business, it will, I think, be more convenient to take the Debate on Production, which we were going to have on the third Sitting Day, on the first Sitting Day after 27th July. Therefore, on the third Sitting Day it is proposed to debate Food Production and Distribution, and the appropriate Votes will be put down.

Earl Winterton: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why it is more convenient to take the Debate at a later date? Does that mean that it gives more time for consideration?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that topic might be pursued, but I do not think it is necessary to do so now.

Mr. G. Macdonald: The Lord Privy Seal previously seemed to give a hint of our having a fourth Sitting Day. Is it intended to ask us to have that Sitting?

The Prime Minister: A statement is going to be made about Business by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

UNITED STATES LOAN TO GREAT BRITAIN.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I should like, with permission, to make a statement regarding negotiations for a loan in the United States. I am glad to be able to inform the House that, with the approval of the President of the United States, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation has authorised a loan to His Majesty's Government of 425,000,000 dollars and an Agreement was signed yesterday. The purpose of the loan is to provide this country with exchange to be used towards paying for war supplies contracted for prior to the enactment of the Lend-Lease Act. As collateral security for the loan, there will be pledged shares representing direct investments and certain marketable securities. There will be no change in the control or management of these direct investments, including British-owned insurance companies in the United States. The loan will bear interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum and mature in 15 years, provided that an extension for five years may at our option be made if two-thirds of the capital has been repaid at the end of 15 years. The full text of the announcement which is being made to-day in the United States will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The terms of the Agreement are contained in a White Paper which will be available at once in the Vote Office.
I believe the House, with the terms of the Agreement before them, will agree with me that this represents a satisfactory arrangement and once again reflects the readiness of the United States Administration to extend their assistance to us. The execution of this Agreement will require legislation, since the Treasury will need to

retain special powers until the loan has been fully repaid, whereas the present Emergency Powers Act will in the ordinary course lapse before that date. The Government intend to ask the House to pass the necessary legislation as a matter of urgency. The text of the Bill will be available to-morrow, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister authorises me to say that it is proposed to ask the House to consider it and to pass it through all its stages on the fourth Sitting Day.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask the Chancellor whether this will interfere in any way with the Exchange Equalisation Fund?

Mr. White: While expressing the satisfaction we all feel about the nature of this transaction, which is certainly generous, did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the income from the pledged securities will not be devoted to the service of the loan but will remain for the benefit of the holders?

Sir K. Wood: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until he sees the terms of the Agreement and the full explanation I shall give when the matter comes before the House.

Following is the text of the announcement made in the United States:

With the approval of the President, and at the request of the Federal Loan Administrator, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation has to-day authorised a loan to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 425,000,000 dollars. The loan is made under specific authority granted to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation by Congress in an Act approved by the President on10th June, 1941, for the purpose of providing the British with dollar exchange without having to sell their securities and investments at forced sale. They will be used by Great Britain to pay for war supplies in this country contracted for prior to enactment of the Lend-Lease Bill. The collateral includes securities of United States Corporations listed on the New York Stock Exchange having an aggregate value at present quoted prices of approximately 205,000,000 dollars, unlisted securities of United States Corporations estimated to be worth approximately 115,000,000 dollars and capital stock of 41 British-owned United States insurance companies estimated to have an aggregate


nett worth something over 180 million dollars. There will be no change in control or management of these direct investments including insurance companies. Their strong financial position and stability will continue unaffected.

In addition to the foregoing, there will be assigned to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation earnings of United States branches of the 41 British insurance companies not incorporated in this country. Nett assets of these branches in this country represented by investments in the United States over and above reserves necessary to meet their policy obligations in this country is approximately 200,000,000 dollars, consisting largely of cash and United States Government securities. Collateral will be pledged to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and deposited with the Federal Reserve Bank as in case of other loans made by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Interest and dividends on this collateral, together with earnings of United States branches of the 41 British insurance companies have averaged about 36,000,000 dollars a year for the past five years, all of which will be applied to payment of interest and principal of the loan.

The loan will bear interest at rate of 3 per cent. per annum and mature in 15 years, providing that an extension for five years may be made if two-thirds of principal has been repaid by the end of 15 years. On basis of the past five years, the available income would amortise the loan in 15 years. Funds will be available to the British as needed to meet their commitments at approximate rates of 100,000,000 dollars a month.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1941).

Estimate presented—of the further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1942, [By Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply and to be printed. [No. 104.]

PRIVILEGES.

Second Report from the Committee of Privileges with Minutes of Evidence brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 103.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to Amendments to—

Portsmouth Water Bill [Lords] without Amendment.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (EXTENSION OF RISK PERIOD) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is needed because, as the House will be aware, Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, provides for payments in respect of damage to land, only if that damage occurs during the period which ends on 31st August this year. It was, of course, never the intention of the Government or of Parliament that no provision should be made in respect of damage occurring after that date. As I made clear when I introduced the original Bill, the risk period was designed in order to provide a basis for the payment of contributions and give Parliament an opportunity to review the matter and to determine what contributions might be required in respect of future damage when that period had expired.
The reasons which caused the Government to introduce the War Damages Scheme remain as cogent as ever, namely, to make full security provision against war damage to property and goods and to help to restore assets of vital importance to our national economy in which practically every section of the community has a considerable stake. While, however, for all these reasons it is essential that protection should continue to be given, the time is not yet ripe for that review by Parliament to which I have referred, and at some future date, probably in the Autumn, it will be necessary for Parliament to consider more comprehensive legislation relating to war damage. In the first place, the Act itself is long and complicated, and experience of its working may disclose points at which it needs amendment. I also have under consideration, as I explained to the House at the end of May, the legislation which will be needed to provide a scheme relating to war damage to public utility undertakings, but we are not yet in a position— discussions are in fact now going on with the interests concerned— to submit that more comprehensive legislation.
This Bill, therefore, makes provision for what is immediately essential, namely, to give protection in respect of damage occurring after 31st August next. The existing position is in no way changed, nor, of course, are the decisions to be taken by Parliament at a later stage with regard to contributions in any way prejudiced. All that the Bill does is to provide that payments under Part I of the War Damage Act may continue to be made, subject to the same terms and conditions as at present apply, in respect of damage to land which may occur during the period beginning at 1st September next and ending on 31st August, 1942. That is what is described as the second risk period. I have chosen that period because I think it is an appropriate one to take. It would be inconvenient to have too short a period, and, on the other hand, I have no doubt Parliament would not wish to commit itself too far ahead on so important a matter. I should, at the same time, explain that no similar provisions for extension of time are required in respect of the schemes for the insurance of goods against war damage covered by Part II of the Act and administered by the Board of Trade. My hon. Friends who followed the proceedings on the Act will remember that these schemes are not limited by the Act in point of time.
I had better say a few words about contributions. The position with regard to contributions, as laid down in Part I of the Act, is left unchanged. Contributions will remain payable as at present, and payable in respect of the risk period which is about to expire. The contributions to be payable in respect of the further risk period provided for in the Bill are left to Parliament to determine at a later stage. We shall be in a better position then, for obvious reasons, to see what the situation is in regard to contributions.
The provisions of the Bill are set out in a single and, I think, a simple Clause. The first Sub-section provides for the continuance of payments in respect of damage occurring during a further year, and the second reserves the question of contributions to be paid in respect of that year for future determination. The Schedule applies the same principles in detail to the relevant Sections of the War Damage Act. I hope the House will give


a friendly and speedy passage to this short but important Bill. It will, I know, be the unanimous determination of the House to carry on with the war damage scheme, and I would say, in conclusion, that this Measure, providing for further payments in respect of that scheme, offers further evidence, if such were needed, of our confidence in our capacity to withstand any assaults that the enemy may make upon us.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in all the words that are necessary, has explained the provisions of this Bill. I say, straight away, that if we were living in ordinary times, I would consider—and the light hon. Gentleman would probably agree with me—that this was a most unsatisfactory proposal. I was born in, I will not say the expansive, but the secure Victorian era. A Bill of this kind, with its complete uncertainty, would have filled the Victorians with horror and dismay. First, we embarked upon an insurance Bill which was not really an insurance Bill at all, but a form of tax on owners of property in order to cover an absolutely unknown risk, and the State agreed to undertake at least half the risk and after that, to see what could be done. The present proposal is still more vague, because it extends the period for which benefit is paid, while not even going so far as to declare whether there is to be any further premium, or, if so, what the amount is to be. Therefore, judged by the ordinary standards of peace-time, I can hardly imagine a worse proposal than that to which the right hon. Gentleman invites us to give a Second Reading to-day. But we all know that we are living in very exceptional times. We cannot complain because the Government cannot form any estimate of the damage. We do not know in the least what the future nature of the war will be; we do not know how far damage will be inflicted, from the skies or otherwise, upon this country. We are living in a world which our fathers of the Victorian age could never have dreamed of as being possible. We have to face facts. When the Government told us in the spring that the insurance would run out on 31st August and that after that another Bill would be required, I confess I was very much surprised that they imagined that they would by that time have experience enough to enable them to bring in a

Bill covering the whole ground. They are bringing in an interim Bill, leaving everything uncertain except that damage will be covered for a further period. I think they are right in taking that course. While it is true that the whole thing is really left in the air, I think that the House will be well advised to give this interim Bill a Second Reading to-day.

Sir Frank Sanderson: I rise to support the Bill. I agree entirely with the remarks of my right hon. Friend. I am extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend has decided to leave the Bill in such an open form. Had he made any attempt to fix a premium or to fix a maximum or minimum to the amount of damage which should be contemplated, I think it would have been a mistake.

Earl Winterton: As I took a fairly prominent part in the previous Debate, I should like to say a word on this Bill. I hope, Sir, that you will not rule me out of Order if I say that those of us who have had experience of the previous Act are very grateful for the way that the Government have met difficulties arising under that Act, some of which could not have been foreseen. I want to support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) in saying that, while it is abundantly necessary to have this Bill at the present time, it is desirable that a second Bill should be brought Forward as soon as circumstances permit. I am connected with a number of "institutions which have a large property interest, and, as the Chancellor will be the first to appreciate, the Bill leaves the situation, from a business point of view, in a very unsatisfactory state.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day— [Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (EXTENSION OF RISK PERIOD) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major Sir JAMES EDMONDSON in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the provisions of


the War Damage Act, 1941, relating to payments in respect of war damage under Part I of that Act to damage occurring after the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-one, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys which is attributable to the extension of those provisions (including provisions relating to payments in respect of damage to highways) to damage occurring during the period beginning with the first day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and ending with the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-two."— (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Captain Crook-shank.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rates of sickness and disablement benefit and the rates of contribution payable under the Acts relating to National Health Insurance, to extend the said Acts to persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour at a rate of remuneration exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds a year, and in connection therewith to amend the Acts relating to widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions and certain other enactments, and to enable any of the Acts aforesaid to be adapted by regulations to wartime conditions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase, resulting from the operation of the said Act of the present Session, in expenditure which is authorised to be so defrayed under or by virtue of the National Health Insurance Acts, 1936 to 1939, the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1936 to 1940, the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, or Part II of the Old Age and Widows Pensions Act, 1940.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Rates of Contributions.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Messer: I know that there is a great deal of difficulty in getting consistency in these allowances. I want to refer to the effect that this will have upon blind people. I do not want to labour the point; but so complicated are the arrangements as they relate to the provision of assistance to blind people that in some circumstances blind people can actually suffer as a consequence of this provision. I do not want to do more than draw attention to the matter, in the hope that the Minister will turn his attention to it and see whether something can be done. It is logical that when people come before a public assistance committee their first 10s. 6d., instead of the first 7s. 6d., should be ignored. When we deal with blind people there is this strange situation, that they draw their incomes not from one, but from more than one, source. Consequently, a county council or county borough council which may be responsible for a scheme under the Blind Persons Act arrange, for instance, that the person shall have a maximum income. They make an allowance out of public funds to bring the income of the blind person up to a maximum of, say, 30s. a week. The Middlesex County Council, whose scheme is one of the best in the country, enables any blind person to have his income made up to a maximum of 27s. 6d. That has recently been increased. What is happening here is that, whereas previously we ignored 7s. 6d., we shall now ignore 10s., but it will not make a penny difference to the income of the blind person. If we should ignore the amount that could be drawn, then the local authority would really be putting the difference into its pocket, and the blind person would get no benefit. I am sure that if the Minister will give his attention to this matter, something may perhaps be done.
We are surely considering the position of the individual, and in considering the blind people, in whom I am very interested, we have this strange situation. They are not getting a grant from public funds merely because they are poor. Many of the people on public assistance


have throughout their lifetime earned money and have had some of the joys of life, but blind people do not have that opportunity. They are not merely poor. They are poor because they are blind, and therefore possibly it is not just a question of the exigencies of the moment or of the fluctuations which take place in industry. This thing is permanent in their lives. The solution would be to ensure these people a definite income from national sources, and it is because of the peculiar position of these people that I hope that some consideration may be given to their exceptional case and that something will be done.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for stating this case on this Bill, but this is not the appropriate place in which to do anything about it. However, he has called my attention to the matter, and I can assure him that I shall keep my eye on the subject.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask the Minister whether, in the new survey, the position of the blind in relation to social services will be considered?

Mr. Brown: The survey will be so wide that nobody of this kind can remain outside it.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it specifically inside?

Mr. Brown: I could not say without notice, but the matter is engaging the attention of the Committee.

Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Third Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PHARMACY AND MEDICINES BILL.

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE— (Enforcement by Pharmaceutical Society.)

(1) It shall be the duty of the Society to take all reasonable steps to enforce the provisions of sections three, four and six of this Act and for that purpose the Society may employ the inspectors appointed by them under section twenty-five of the principal Act.
 (2) References in the said section twenty-five to Part I and Part II of the principal Act shall be construed as including references to those

Parts of that Act as amended by this Act.—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause has been introduced in answer to a request by the House that on the professional side the enforcement should be made through the Pharmaceutical Society, and these are the appropriate words, which, after discussion, I promised to bring forward to the House when on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. James Griffiths: On the Committee stage there was a question as to whether powers given to the Pharmaceutical Society would interfere with powers of the local authority. The local authorities agreed that these powers can be exercised by the Society without interfering with the powers which they exercise.

Mr. E. Brown: I think that there can be no doubt that the powers of the local authorities will remain unimpaired.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of Statutory Committee over bodies corporate.)

(1) The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (3) of Section nine of the principal Act—
"(3) If—
 (a) a body corporate has been convicted of an offence under the Pharmacy Acts; or
(b) any member of the board, or any officer of a body corporate, or any person employed by a body corporate in carrying on a business, has been convicted of any such criminal offence, or been guilty of any such misconduct as in the opinion of the Statutory Committee renders him, or would, if he were a registered pharmacist render him, unfit to be on the register;
then whether the body corporate was or was not an authorised seller of poisons at the time when the offence or misconduct was committed, the Committee may inquire into the case and may, subject to the provisions of this Act, direct—
(i) that the body corporate shall, in a case where it is an authorised seller of poisons, cease to be such a seller and, in any case, be disqualified, for such period as may be specified in the directions, from being an authorised seller of poisons; or
(ii)that all or any of the premises of the body corporate shall, in a case where they are registered in the register of


premises, be removed from that register and, in any case, be disqualified, for such period as may be specified in the directions, from being registered therein."
(2) Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the principal Act (which provides that directions given by the Statutory Committee shall not take effect for three months) shall not apply to directions given under the said Sub-section (3) as respects a body corporate which is not an authorised seller of poisons.—[Captain Elliston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Elliston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Although this Clause looks very large, it is a very simple matter, and I do not think it will keep the House occupied for more than a few minutes. Clause 2 gives power to the Statutory Committee to consider cases of misconduct or of conviction for a criminal offence where the pharmacy concerned is temporarily unregistered by reason of the non-payment of fees. The new Clause has been set down to extend the principle to corporate bodies carrying on a chemist's business. It brings them within the jurisdiction of the Statutory Committee for breaches committed while they are temporarily not carrying on business in accordance with the Pharmacy Acts. That is the main desire back of the Clause, and I hope that the House will be willing to accept it.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I beg to second the Motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): As my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out in moving the Motion, Clause 2 incorporates certain extensions of the powers of the Statutory Committee which have been found to be desirable as the result of practical experience of the working of the Pharmacy Act, 1933. My hon. and gallant Friend's new Clause would make similar extensions in cases where corporate bodies are concerned, as Clause 2 does in the case where individuals are concerned. It is a useful Amendment, which, obviously, ought to have been incorporated in the Bill at an earlier stage, but the omission has been pointed out to us by the Pharmaceutical Society, and we accept the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE—(Exercise of jurisdiction of Statutory Committee.)

(1)No directions shall be given by the Statutory Committee under section two of this Act, or under subsection (3) of section nine of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, except with the assent of the chairman of the committee.
(2)Subsection (1) of section eleven of the principal Act (which restricts the power of the Statutory Committee to give directions under the foregoing provisions of that Act in cases of default by an employee) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the fore going provisions of that Act included a reference to the provisions of this Act.
(3)Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the principal Act (which empowers the Statutory Committee to make regulations as to the procedure to be followed in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by that Act) shall have effect as if the reference therein to that Act included a reference to this Act.—[Captain Elliston.]

Brought up; and read the First time.

Captain Elliston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is consequential upon the new Clause with which we have just dealt. It brings the provisions of that Clause into line with the procedure of the Statutory Committee under the principal Act by requiring the Chairman, as well as the majority of the Committee, to be satisfied before a company is penalised.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I beg to Second the Motion.

Mr. Peake: We have looked at this new Clause. It is consequential upon the previous new Clause and will be a useful addition to the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 6 (Disclosure of composition of medicines)

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, after "sold," to insert, "or supplied as aforesaid."
This Amendment is consequential on Amendments accepted by me on the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 11, at the beginning, insert, "or supplied as aforesaid."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 7, line 13, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 21, and to insert:
 "(i) the appropriate designation of the substance so recommended or of each of the active constituents thereof; and
 (ii) in a case where the appropriate designation of each of the active constituents is written as aforesaid, the appropriate quantitative particulars of the constituents."
I will make a general statement on this Amendment, as it covers a long Amendment later on the same page. The House will remember that in all quarters two desires were expressed: first, that we should enlarge the scope of the definition by including quantities and, second, that so Jar as possible we should get the expression in popular language. I pointed out in the course of the Second Reading Debate that the English language, expressed in certain definitions, was not quite as clear as some technical headlines which were not supposed to be in the English language. The real desire of the House was to get it as clear as could be, and I have had a close look at this matter to see how far we could get disclosure expressed in everyday terms. This Amendment and the following Amendment are my propositions to the House. I am bound to say, however, that the more popular you tend to make an expression the more danger you are in of losing accuracy, and the House would not wish me to lose accuracy for popularity.
What I have done is to examine very thoroughly disclosure in everyday terms, and wherever a well-known term exists that name should be used. I have come to the conclusion that I must not make that disclosure in so vague and uncertain terms as to make it either less accurate than otherwise or less easily enforceable. I have fallen back on disclosure in terms which will be readily understood by a doctor, chemist or any other expert. Taken with the other Amendment this Amendment requires disclosure in one of the following ways: (1) Where a medicine or a constituent is a poison in the Poisons List the name to be used is that required in connection with the labelling of the poison; (2) Where it is not a poison but is described in the British Pharmacopeia or the British Pharmaceutical Codex the description at the head of the relevant monograph must be used; (3) Where it is neither a poison nor described in the British Pharma-

ceutical Codex, then the accepted scientific name or other name descriptive of its true nature must be used.
I think the House will agree that I have done my best to meet their desires in this matter. So far as quantitative disclosure is concerned the second part of this particular Amendment and the subsequent Amendment require the quantities of the named constituents to be disclosed either by giving the percentages in the medicine, or by stating the actual amounts. When a medicine is supplied in the form of pills and tablets disclosure may be made in one of three ways: (1) The percentage of the constituent in the medicine; (2) the quantity in each pill or tablet; or (3) the quantity of the constituent in the whole article. The effect of these Amendments, together is to require disclosure in English so that the explicit requirement to that effect is unnecessary.

Mr. J. Griffiths: So far as I can see, the Minister has made an honest attempt to meet not only my desire but the desires of others. What we are anxious to do, as far as possible, is to prevent people being defrauded, and in order to protect people it is essential that we must tell the public what is in their medicine. The description must be in terms that will be understood by the people. I accept the Minister's assurance that that point will be fully met when it can be met in the Amendments which he now proposes.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I do not want to do more than thank my right hon. Friend for having met us in other respects. I agree that as regards the description we have the same desire as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). We want to stop fraud by having plain statements which cannot be got round by the extremely ingenious people who are sharks in this world. It must be something quite clear and definite, and for that purpose we must use scientific names. But they must be such scientific names as can be traced to their source. If the public are inquisitive and want to know what they are taking, they will no doubt be advised by doctors or chemists or through the Press. The Press has constantly been fulfilling this extremely useful function of interpreting technical phrases of any profession for the benefit of the general reader. We shall have to rely on them, as I know we can, to interpret these terms by referring to the


British Pharmacopoeia or the Codex, so in that way the public will get what they want and not be defrauded as in the past. The second point in the Amendment, is the provision requiring quantitative particulars. It is essential that not only should the description state what are the ingredients, but give the quantity of the ingredients, because otherwise a man who wished to defraud the public might include in the medicine an infinitesimal dose of some important ingredient and fill it up with unimportant ingredients. We were afraid that the proprietary trade might object to this quantitative statement, and I think it is to their credit that they met the Minister in this respect and agreed to the provision. I think this Amendment has the unique advantage of satisfying everybody, including me.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I do not think anybody fails to recognise the good intentions of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and I congratulate him on having translated the promises he gave into words in these Amendments; but I want to ask him whether it is possible that, in his efforts to meet the criticisms that were made, he has overlooked the effect of the word "quantitative" on the business of herbalists, for whom I speak in the House. I can quite understand that in the case of drugs, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), it is essential that the quantities of the ingredients should be stated, but the herbalists feel that if they have to state the quantities of the different ingredients of herbal preparations, they will be giving away their trade secrets to those who may be called their competitors. After all, the herbalists have built up their great popularity, which they deservedly have, over a long period of years, and they were practising long before druggists and chemists came into existence. They feel that it is now a matter of grave importance that my right hon. Friend should not overlook the fact that if the word "quantitative" is applied in the case of herbal preparations, it may have a very damaging effect on the herbalists' trade. I hope my right hon. Friend will find a way of meeting this point in another place.

Professor A. V. Hill: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for meeting the points that were brought forward during the Committee stage. I believe that the qualifications he has now introduced in these Amendments will very greatly strengthen the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 25, after "subsection," insert:
" (a) the expression ' appropriate designation,' in relation to a substance or constituent, means—
 (i) in a case where the substance or constituent is a poison included in the poisons list, the name with which the container of the poison is for the time being required to be labelled in pursuance of paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the principal Act;
 (ii) in a case where the substance or constituent is not such a poison and is described in any of the monographs contained in the edition of the British Pharmacopoeia or the British Pharmaceutical Codex which was last published before the date on which the article was sold or supplied, the description set out at the head of that monograph;
 (iii) in a case where the substance or constituent is not such a poison and is not so described, the accepted scientific name, or other name descriptive of the true nature, of the substance or constituent;
 (b) the expression ' appropriate quantitative particulars,' in relation to the active constituents of a substance, means—
 (i) the approximate percentage of each of those constituents contained in the substance or the approximate quantity of each of those constituents contained in the article sold or supplied; or
 (ii) in a case where the said article consists of or comprises a number of separate portions of the substance, either the approximate percentage of quantity aforesaid or the approximate quantity of each of the constituents contained in each portion; and
 (c) "—[Mr. E. Brown.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons.)

Sir T. Moore: I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, to leave out paragraph (a).
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss together this Amendment and the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper in page 9, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act a person who carries on a legitimate practice of herbalism and the sale of herbal preparations may, subject to the provisions of Section six of this Act sell herbal preparations which are medicines within the meaning of this Act.


The purpose of these Amendments is to prevent the Bill from stopping the business of herbalists. I make no apology for raising this matter again. I know that my right hon. Friend intends, as far as words can make his meaning clear, to safeguard the rights of herbalists, and I know that intention is shared by the Parliamentary Secretary. I have in my hand a copy—I trust that my right hon. Friend also has one—of the opinion of an eminent counsel as to the effect which this Clause will have on the position of herbalists. I will not quote the whole of the document, but only this remark:
There is not the slightest foundation for any such suggestion "—
that is, the suggestion that anything in Clause 7 can affect herbalists. In view of that opinion, given by a very eminent counsel, which thus gives a legal backing for the contention I am advancing, surely my right hon. Friend will see to it that the Amendments I am moving are accepted, or will find some other method of wording the Clause which will put the position completely beyond doubt. Subsection (1) of the Clause prohibits any persons from selling medicines unless they are registered medical practitioners, registered dentists, authorised sellers of poisons, or chemists. This creates a further monopoly for the greatest monopolists in the country. The herbalists are convinced that under the Bill as it now is, any herbalist who continues to sell herbal preparations will be liable to prosecution. It is true that in Subsections (4) and (5) of the Clause, herbalists would be permitted to put up two defences, but I do not believe that these provisions, or the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has on the Order Paper to Sub-section 4 (a) are adequate. They provide no safeguard.
I should like to recall to my right hon. Friend, in support of my argument, that in the Second Reading debate, and again in Committee, both he and the Parliamentary Secretary said several times that they did not intend to prevent herbalists from carrying on the businesses they had formed, but I maintain that those intentions are inconsistent with the Bill as it now is. In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend said that there was no desire on the part of anyone to interfere with the legitimate practice of the legitimate herbalist. In reply to the hon.

Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and myself, it was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary that there was no desire whatever to interfere with the genuine operations of genuine herbalists. Notwithstanding all those assurances, apparently herbalists will not be allowed to continue their businesses, as they feel they must continue if they are to be of service to the country and the invalid section of the community, which certainly they are today. It was for the purpose of giving my right hon. Friend an opportunity of giving effect to these various undertakings and promises that I put down these two Amendments. I ask him to accept the Amendments and allow herbalists who carry on legitimate businesses, as the majority of them do to-day, in the sale of herbal preparations, to continue doing so.

Major Milner: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so, not because I have any special interest in herbalists, or, indeed, that I have any knowledge of the business they carry on, but because the Amendment seems to cover a difficulty which was put to me this morning. The difficulty arises in this way. I am informed by the Incorporated Society of Pharmacists and Drug Store Proprietors, whose registered office is in Leeds, that a number of people throughout the country, who have not been formally apprenticed, have been carrying on business for a number of years, either on their own account, or with others. For example, there is one man whose father was a qualified pharmacist in March, 1871, who died in November, 1925, after being in the business for 54 years. His son, who was born in1874, helped his father and eventually assisted in dispensing, but unfortunately was not formally apprenticed. Since his father's death that man has carried on the business in an unqualified capacity. He has been engaged in the business for 50 years or more. It seems to me that unless some Amendment is adopted, that man will have to close down his business which he has apparently carried on successfully without complaint for more than 50 years. I would remind the Minister that many of these businesses are carried on in the poorer parts of large cities and that they assist people who live in those areas.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me, assuming that a man has sold herbal preparations under these


circumstances, if the Amendment is accepted, whether he will be covered, and, if not, what will be his position. Under the Bill as it stands, will those businesses have to be closed down and the owners faced possibly with ruin? There are many professions where those who have carried on in an unqualified capacity have had some provision made to deal with their case, such as the legal profession, and so on. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable that, subject to a certificate from the Minister's Department or elsewhere, in these extreme cases, those concerned should be permitted to retain their rights and privileges, instead of being deprived of their livelihood.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him to make as plain a statement as is possible on the position of herbalists under this Bill, and to state whether this Amendment is necessary or not to protect the public. Since last we discussed this matter I have received an enormous amount of correspondence, including many letters from my constituents. I could quote to the Committee many of these authentic cases. I have made inquiries and I have found out that they are genuine letters, and, therefore, I must pay some attention to them. They nearly all follow the same line. The persons concerned state they have tried their doctor and have seen a specialist but have obtained no satisfaction until they have visited a herbalist. These people have probably been canvassed by the herbalists, who have told them that if this Bill passes they will be unable to continue to give their treatment. The Bill lays down certain conditions, and they are necessary conditions, but I think some clear and concise statement should be made on this subject. I have a letter from the Society of Herbalists. The Minister will remember that when we discussed this Bill last he said that he had met them and that they were entirely satisfied, but according to my letter they left completely unsatisfied with the Minister's explanation. Members must take notice of these letters, although it is our duty to see that no one is allowed to practise to the detriment of the public. In many ways there is a case for extending the provisions of this Bill. It has already been pointed out in a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill) that

many of the practices about which he spoke will not be affected by this Measure. I appeal to the Minister to make a plain statement, so that there is no ambiguity and misunderstanding on the position of herbalists.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I will now try to make a plain statement. I should like to reassure hon. Members in all parts of the House that, as my right hon. Friend and I have stated over and over again, we have no desire to stop herbalists carrying on their work. We have also been asked about the position of faith healers, who are endeavouring to cure illnesses as they think best. There is nothing in this Bill to stop treatment of any sort or kind. The easiest way of dealing with this Amendment is to try and make the plainest statement on what can be done if this Bill becomes an Act. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent anyone treating anyone else for any illness.

Mr. MacLaren: Treatment has a different meaning in different circumstances.

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think this Bill will prevent any form of treatment. There is nothing to prevent herbalists or anyone else from making any mixture under a proprietary name and selling it under a proprietary name, so long as there is disclosure, as provided under Clause 6. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who moved this Amendment, quoted an expert opinion on Clause 7, but it did not refer to the whole of Clause 7. If these people had studied the whole of Clause 7, instead of dealing with only one part of it, a great deal of this difficulty might have been cleared up. If my hon. and gallant Friend looks at the Clause, he will see there is a Sub-section (5) as well as a Sub-section (4). One group of people for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs has put the case, who are selling a large number of proprietary medicines, know that the names of the contents must be disclosed. What can they do in future? They can, under Sub-section (4, a), sell this mixture of herbs. There is an Amendment on the Paper going further and including water as well, as some people seem to think that substance must be solid and not liquid, though I


am informed it is not so. Sub-section (4, a) in its amended form shows what herbalists can do in making simple preparations of herbs with water. They can continue to do that.
It may be said that under that simple preparation there cannot be distilling and various other things, but they can still make and sell preparations involving those processes under a proprietary name. What they can do under Sub-section (4, a) are the simple preparations which herbalists are doing without having a proprietary name. If they wish to go beyond that and come into the sphere which would not be that of simple herbal preparations, they can, but they must sell the preparation under a proprietary name, as the majority are doing now, and the preparation must not be one that is already in the British Pharmacopoeia. I think the difficulty has been that people have looked at Sub-section (4, a) and said, "We cannot distil and we cannot make this particular preparation," but they have not gone on and seen that under (5, a) they can do all those things and sell the result under a proprietary name, disclosing the contents. We have been very careful to go into this. I have asked these people to send me a single case showing what they could not do. When I have been told "distilling," my answer has been, "You can do that not under (4, a) but under (5, a). We can see no case at all." It was put to me again, '' Supposing a particular person had been treating and selling medicines for particular ailments, can be go on doing it? He can go on treating, and he can sell the medicine that he makes with these simple herbal remedies with water. He can go further and sell proprietary medicines if he discloses the contents. When I am told that a person who wishes to treat will be stopped because the medicine does not come under this, the answer is that the chemist can still make "it up. No treatment of any sort or kind is stopped as far as we can see.

Sir T. Moore: Surely it is clear that even without the addition of water the processes mentioned in Sub-section (4, a) are limited — there are only a few instead of a vast number of processes— and also they are dry processes to produce a dry substance. My alteration makes it clear beyond doubt. If the result is the same, surely it will be better to remove the doubt which obviously still clings to herbalists.

Miss Horsbrugh: I will try to make it plain. If it is an ordinary, simple, herbal remedy it will come within Sub-section (4, a) If people want to go further, they can do so under (5, a) using a proprietary name. That is the simplest explanation that I can give. The two things must be taken together. I hope I have put hon. Members' minds at ease by that explanation. I do not think there is any difference as far as the people to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds(Major Milner) referred are concerned. They all have the same rights and can sell proprietary medicines-under a proprietary name with disclosure. I know that a good many people think they are being put out of business, but I do not think they are being put out of business at all.

Mr. Mathers: Does this apply even where the purveyor of the medicine does not use a shop but uses his own private residence?

Miss Horsbrugh: A shop is defined as in the Shops Acts, and that is a place where retail sale is carried on, so that a house may be a shop.

Sir T. Moore: I must say candidly that the hon. Lady has satisfied me, but I cannot say whether she has satisfied the herbalists, and the matter may be carried further in another place.

Mr. E. Brown: I am not anxious to do anything more than I have already indicated. I will look again at what hon. Members have said, but I will not do anything to undercut the real purpose of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir T. Moore: I beg to move in page 8, line 39, to leave out "but not subjecting to," and to insert "or."
I move this Amendment in order to get some explanation from the Minister. Under Sub-section (5, a), according to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, herbalists can go much further than they can go under Sub-section (4, a), provided they use a proprietary title for their preparations. Once a proprietary name has been registered it will be impossible, as I see it, for the herbalist making the preparation to make any changes in the make-up so that he will be unable to make use of fresh knowledge that might come to him for the benefit of the community. As far as I can see once a


herbalist has registered a title he will not be allowed to devise any suitable process which may come through increased knowledge. Therefore, the public will be denied the benefit of many preparations which might be given to them.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
This strangely drafted Bill says that a lot of things are offences and that if there is a prosecution, such and such a thing will be a good defence. The Bill says that there shall be a prosecution in order to establish a good defence, instead of adopting the sensible way of saying that it shall not be an offence to do so and so. This is extraordinary drafting which should be looked into. On the question of proprietary articles, a person can continue to sell them unless they are in the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmaceutical Codex, so that all the chemists have to do in order to wreck the industry of these people is to shove articles into the Codex or Pharmacopoeia. I have never seen such drafting in a Bill. I see the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary laughing. Let them read it. Sub-section (5, a) says:
that the substance recommended as a medicine which the article consisted of or comprised was not described in any of the monographs contained in the edition of the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmaceutical Codex which was last published before the date of the passing of this Act.

Miss Horsbrugh: Read on.

Sir H. Williams: It goes on:
or the date on which the substance was first sold by retail under the proprietary designation, whichever date is the later.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend contends that you can change the articles as much as you like and no offence arises. There have to be prosecutions under this Bill before a man can show himself to be in the right, because the Bill is drawn on the basis of prosecutions. Sub-sections (5) and (6) are not exceptions to the preliminary words of the Clause, which are, "no person shall sell by retail." That prohibition remains unqualified, but, having sold by retail something which comes under Subsections (4, a) or (5, a), when the police or whoever prosecutes have done their proper job, a person is charged with an offence—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Amendment with which we have already dealt. We are now on what is merely a drafting Amendment.

Sir H. Williams: My hon. and gallant Friend gave the example of the proprietary medicine, which is partly covered by this Amendment. The problem also arises in Sub-section (5, a), and I would not have raised it in this particular form unless you had previously permitted my hon. and gallant Friend to raise the problem of the proprietary medicine. I think that my right hon. Friend should look at these paragraphs with a view to re-drafting the Clause in another place, so that people will be freed from the obligation of having to raise these defences. It is a point that must be examined by the legal advisers of the Minister.

Miss Horsbrugh: With regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), the ingredients can be changed as long as disclosure takes place of the new ingredients. In answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), if a person was selling a preparation before it appeared in the Codex or the Pharmacopoeia, he can go on selling it. If it appeared in them the day after he sold it, he can go on selling it as long as he sold it first. He cannot sell a thing which is already in the Codex or the Pharmacopoeia. The question of drafting which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon is a larger matter than I can deal with at this moment. I would point out that it is only the individual himself who can give the information as to when he first sold the article. Supposing he was selling a particular medicine and he was told that he had no right to sell it because it was in the Pharmacopoeia or the Codex, he could then prove that he sold it before it was included. That is a defence. My right hon. Friend will look further into my hon. Friend's points. The difficulty has been to safeguard all these matters, and that is why the drafting is so complex. My right hon. Friend, however, will see whether it can be made simpler, at the same time leaving these safeguards which we are anxious to retain.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that an attempt will be made to see whether the Bill can be re-drafted so that a person who is charged will be deemed to be innocent instead of being presumed to be guilty and having to defend himself?

Sir T. Moore: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, which is not altogether satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir T. Moore: I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, to leave out "of a single species."
I am moving this Amendment in order to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of exercising his real kindness and generosity, because I can see no possible justification for not accepting it. As the Clause reads at the moment these preparations are limited to a single species, the words being
of a substance produced by drying, crushing, or comminuting (bat not subjecting to any other process) a plant or plants of a single species.
Candidly, none of my herbalist friends can see any justification for limiting these preparations to a single species. They say that often it is necessary to boil various herbs and to infuse them at one and the same time if real benefit is to be secured from the component parts of each, and it is felt that it was possibly due to some misunderstanding of the methods by which these preparations are made that the Minister allowed the phrase "single species" to be incorporated in the Clause.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment
I can see no reason for limiting this to a single species. My right hon. Friend, despite his cheerfulness, is a teetotaller, but if he ever had consumed that commodity which the vulgar call a "Gin and It" he would have known that it was composed of two herbs, one being juniper, though what the other is I do not know. It is not, however, regarded as a medicine officially, although some people look upon it in that way. I cannot see why we cannot be allowed to mix the results of drying, crushing or comminuting two different species of herbs. I cannot see any sense in that restriction, although there may be some reason for it which my right hon. Friend can explain to us. When you buy a bottle of medicine the bottle has a label

bearing a lot of words in bad Latin which I do not understand but which the medical profession regard as a complete disclosure of what is inside the bottle. Sometimes it finishes up with "H2O," and I happen to know what that means, but it is a disclosure. There was a celebrated case of a chemist who received a piece of paper on which a fly had walked and took it to be a prescription and succeeded in making it up. Therefore, my medical friends must not be too perturbed if I say that I see no reason why these "simples," as I think they were once called, should not include more than one substance. It may be that paragraph (4, a) means that they may, but the Bill is drafted so incomprehensibly that it is possible that I have misread it.

Mr. George Griffiths: I shall not associate myself with what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said about the Minister being so cheerful although he was a teetotaller. I am almost certain that he is so cheerful because he is a teetotaller. Although I am supporting this Amendment, I do not want anyone to think I am supporting it in the same spirit as the hon. Member for South Croydon. What I do know is that there are a lot of species of plants, and that I do not think any hon. Member has had more advice offered to him about remedies than I have had during the last seven years. I have had "perfect cures" sent to me from all parts of the world. One came from Blackburn. The lady wrote: "I see by the Press that you are suffering from so-and-so. I have a cure for it." The cure was this: to pound up some pigs' toe-nails until they are almost like powder and then drink them in water That was sent to me as a perfect cure for diabetes. I think it would be a pity for the Minister to prevent a cure like that from being tried by human beings.

Miss Horsbrugh: The first thing I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) is that in this Sub-section we are dealing with herbs, and so I am afraid that pigs' toe-nails do not come in.

Mr. Griffiths: But the pigs live on herbs.

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend says "Not wholly." Let me come back to herbs, and say that my right hon. Friend is quite willing to accept the


Amendment, but if the Mover and the Seconder will look at the Amendment and then at the words in the Bill they will see that their Amendment is really unnecessary since we already have the words "two or more such substances." And in an Amendment which I shall be moving later we get the same words: "two or more such substances." Therefore, we have already provided that there may be more than one species. We have already provided for the mixing of two species, and further for the mixing of more than two species, and so the point which the hon. Members wanted covering is already covered.

Sir H. Williams: I am delighted with that explanation, but I do not think the hon. Lady quite realises where it leads her. Her argument is that to delete these words will make no difference. The unfortunate thing is that if this Bill should go before the courts to be interpreted the judge will say "Why are those words in?" He will not take any notice of the eloquent speech just made. The real burden of the speech was that the words really make no difference because there can be as many species as they like. But the judge will think that the words have been put in for a definite purpose, and will have to find out what that purpose is, and no one knows what the result may be. It is only another proof of how badly the Bill is drafted.

Mr. E. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has not given that close attention to all the stages of this Bill which he usually gives to Measures in which he is interested. The present drafting is not the official drafting of the Bill but is the result of an attempt by me to meet these very points. We have met the points about blending, and more than one species, and more than one substance, and I am advised that it is not now necessary in pursuance of the general scheme to include the words mentioned in the Amendment, and therefore I shall be very glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, after "substances," to insert:
or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are one or more of such substances and water.

This provides that water may be added to the substances. It has been suggested that the word "substance" does not include liquid. This Amendment is put forward by my right hon. Friend in order to meet that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir T. Moore: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, after the words last inserted, to insert:
with or without the addition of preservatives.
This Amendment seeks to insert a provision to permit preservatives to be used. They are not part of the mixture or of the preparation as such, the essential part of which is the medicine. Such preservatives are intended as may be necessary to prevent the mixture from decaying.

Sir F. Fremantle: What is "decaying"?

Sir T. Moore: The hon. Gentleman and I are approaching that age—

Mr. J. Griffiths: You will need preservatives.

Sir T. Moore: No doubt the Parliamentary draftsmen will understand what is meant by the term, and so will the herbalists and any court which may have to consider the point. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that herbal preparations are safe from decay by the use of proper and adequate preservatives.

Professor A. V. Hill: My trouble about the word "preservative" is that very few things could not be called into that category by some stretch of imagination. We do not want to leave loopholes in the Bill by which the public may be deceived. I ask the House not to agree to this Amendment if the expression "preservative" is not to be more accurately denned.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am glad my hon. Friend has just put that point. I am sure that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment will realise that "preservative" is a rather wide term. Preservatives may be added if medicines are sold under a proprietary name, but I am informed that the whole nature of some vegetable substances may be changed by certain treatment and converted into substances quite outside the range of herbalists' activity. I will not trouble the House by going into detail on this point.
I point out to the Mover of the Amendment that what cannot be done under this provision can be done in the case of a proprietary medicine.

Sir H. Williams: If I put on a bottle that '' ethyl alcohol '' has been used as a preservative, would that meet the requirements?

Miss Horsbrugh: After agreeing to the addition of water, it now appears that we are to add alcohol. The Mover of the Amendment will appreciate the difficulties involved in defining what a preservative is.

Sir T. Moore: I fully realise the difficulty. If it should be possible to find some better method, an Amendment might be accepted in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 8.—(Defence to charges under two preceding sections.)

Amendment made:

In page 9, line 41, at the end, insert:
(2) In any proceedings for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections, a document purporting to be a certificate signed by a public analyst within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, or a person appointed by the Secretary of State to make analyses for the purpose of the principal Act, and stating the result of an analysis made by him, shall be admissible as evidence of the matters stated therein, but any party to the proceedings may require the person by whom the analysis was made to be called as a witness."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendments made:

In page 12, line 19, at the end, insert:
(b) for the reference to a public analyst within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, there shall be substituted a reference to a public analyst appointed under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928.

In line 20, after "five," insert "and Section ten."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir F. Fremantle: I should not like to let the Bill go without emphasising the great debt we owe to those who have brought the Bill to this stage of being passed into law. In the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) I can register also what we owe to him, without raising

his blushes. This is the end of a long history of hard endeavour on the part of himself and his friends, over many years, to deal with this species of fraud on the public. I hope the Bill will do much to put an end to that fraud. My hon. and gallant Friend has done a great deal of work in this direction, with very little help and against a great deal of antagonism. He has met the persons concerned, and now the Minister of Health has put the matter into official form. I believe the Minister has realised in his conferences some of the difficulties which have been met with all these years by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn. A great tribute is due to all the interests concerned. They have mollified their opposition by degrees, until now they have come to heel by supporting this legislation.
This is a remarkable piece of legislation from the point of view of bringing out what is too often forgotten: the quite rightful opportunity—the liberal opportunity—that is left to herbalists and other people to treat the public so long as they do not defraud. It is often said and thought that the medical profession has a monopoly of treatment. There is no such thing. Everybody can get treated or maltreated as much as he likes, and I am very glad that the herbalists should have been left the opportunity they have under this Bill. We quite recognise the truth of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said to the effect that herbalists carried on their trade long before the medical profession as such was thought of. The use of herbs is as old as creation, and it is through that that the medical and pharmaceutical professions have discovered the use of valuable drugs. They have been tried out under the most extraordinary empirical conditions, often with disastrous results to the patients—it has been an experiment in vivisection on the community—but often with such valuable results that a drug has come into common use. One such drug is ergot, which is extraordinarily valuable in child-birth. It is now recognised as consisting of several constituents, some of which are valuable while others are dangerous, and the valuable derivatives are now in common practical use in pharmacy. It is an instance of how we must not stifle enterprise and individuality of any kind, nor the desire and the right of


people to use any method they think fit for treating themselves or for being treated, and giving proper remuneration in return for the benefits or otherwise which they receive. The medical profession entirely endorses that point of view. We have no monopoly and do not wish to have any monopoly.
On the other hand, we recognise, and I hope it is generally recognised too, that this is in keeping with the Medical Act of 1858, and subsequent amending Acts, which were introduced not in order to give privileges to the medical profession, but to give protection and guidance to the general public. Obviously there are difficult border-line cases, but in general it is for the protection of the public that there is a recognised medical profession with a recognised training—I believe of a very high standard, consistently maintained—but there is nothing to prevent people using their own judgment if they so desire. From the point of view of the medical profession and from that of the public, this Measure is only a stepping stone. It is a great advance, not least because of the improvements which have been made to it to-day, but there are other things which have already been referred to which cannot be so easily defined. I have not the least doubt that the sharks who have made money by deliberately misleading the public will continue to do so, because they will find ways of avoiding the provisions of the present Measure. Further amendments may therefore be required, but it is a very good thing to proceed slowly, step by step, and this Measure will be a useful test as to how far restrictions can be introduced without disturbance to the proper interests of the public. I trust it will be rapidly passed in another place and will soon become law, and that the arrangements for enforcing it will be properly carried out. We shall then find much useful experience in its operation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We ought to thank the Minister and his assistants for the way in which they have tried to meet the Amendments put down. This will be a useful Bill. I think it was a necessary Bill for the protection of that part of the public which most needs protection, the people who are suffering from disease and whose psychology is open to the

worst kind of exploitation. If the Bill gives that protection, it will be a very useful Bill indeed. I think it could have gone further than it does, but I am sure the Minister will later call for a report on its operation to see whether its provisions need widening or tightening-up, and I hope he will not hesitate to come to the House to ask for authority in that direction. I will conclude with the first observation I made in the course of the Second Reading, that the best remedy against all these things is to build up a positive medical service available to everyone everywhere, making all that science knows available to all on equal terms. Out of the survey which is to be made and out of the stresses of war I hope something of the kind may ultimately come. Meantime, we give this Bill a welcome.

Question, "that the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Reorganisation Committees Measure, 1941, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
This Measure is the essential response of the Church Assembly to Section 39 of the War Damage Act, which provides that the War Damage Commission shall have power, instead of making a value payment or a cost of works payment, to pay lump sums to bodies representing Churches and similar organisations, and it was quite obviously necessary that the Church of England should bring its Church laws into conformity with the public Statute law represented by the War Damage Act. As things stand at present, there is an obligation upon incumbents of the Church of England and churchwardens to undertake with reasonable promptitude the restoration of damaged churches. Unfortunately, as everybody knows, a very large number of churches have been either destroyed or seriously damaged. This Measure provides for the


necessary delay. It removes the existing obligation from the shoulders of the incumbents and church-wardens, and places the responsibility for providing for the delay and for the necessary reorganisation upon the diocesan committees which will be set up under this Measure. It has already been arranged under the War Damage Act that local matters should be dealt with regionally. The regional officers require a body, other than individual churchwardens and individual parsons, to negotiate with, and further there is this matter to be provided for, that particularly in the great cities, and notably the City of London, where a large number of churches have been destroyed, it will probably be found unnecessary that all those churches should be rebuilt. The Diocesan Reorganisation Committees set up by this Measure will have the power to re-arrange, and make fresh plans, for the provision of necessary churches for the public worship of any given area. I do not think it is necessary to go into a greater detail than this, and I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1952, for extending Section one of that Act to the Parish of Kirkby Stephen, in the Rural District of North Westmorland, a copy of which was presented to this House on 15th July, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

Orders of the Day — WHIPS (APPOINTMENT).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whiteley.]

Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone): The greatest menace to this country to-day is the continuation of the "old school tie" predominance in politics. It has developed a practice that overlooks inefficiency and administrative shortcomings, provided that the offender conforms to the standards laid down by the "Margesson school. "By the" Margesson school" I mean the system whereby the discipline of Government Ministers and M.P. supporters is controlled through the Government Whips'

office, a system perfected by the right hon. and gallant Member for Rugby (Captain Margesson), who, for so many years, was Chief Whip. Few Conservatives could hope for advancement unless they were approved by the "Margesson school" and conformed to the necessary standards. These standards do not necessarily include ability, but, with few exceptions, it is essential that candidates should be popular types of men who belong to the so-called hereditary ruling class, and it has been noticed that, if they also happen to be hunting men, then their careers in the Government are assured, starting in the Whips' office as Junior Whips—an appropriate hunting term.
Of course, it is also demanded that they should be good party men, which, in plain language, means that they shall be docile, that they will do what they are told, and that they will not ask awkward questions. All this may sound fantastic, but nevertheless it is true, and in some ways it is reasonable, and from the Chief Whip's point of view, it is quite understandable, because his is the responsibility of seeing that there is no trouble for the Government or, anyhow, as little trouble as possible. The Chief Whip was not likely to recommend to the Prime Minister of the day that some brilliant, stormy petrel, with the strength of his convictions, should be given a Government appointment; to have somebody within the nest who might take a strong and independent line would he just asking for trouble. That is why the present Prime Minister, Lord Beaverbrook, and, I understand, Lord Rothermere, were constantly excluded from succeeding Governments.
Then, again, one can appreciate that in the Whips' Office it is essential that there should be good team work, and as the Chief Whip very naturally chooses men to help him whom he knows and whom he can trust, that is to say, his friends, he does so, sometimes, regardless of whether they have political aptitude or keenness. Prior to entering the Whips' Office the present Chief Whip had attended 88 Divisions out of a Session of 414 Divisions, so it will be seen that it is not conscientious application to House of Commons duties that is considered to be of paramount importance. To that extent, I ought to be in the running for a Whip's job, because I think there was a period when my Division record was


worse than was the record I have just mentioned of the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart).
I wonder if my reasons for non-attendance at that period were the same as his. Was he, like myself, disgusted, and disheartened, by the determination of the Baldwin-Chamberlain crowd not to prevent Germany from re-arming and by their corresponding determination to go slow with our own re-arming? Though what happened at Munich was deplorable, nevertheless I feel that it was essential, in view of what had gone before. But when M.P.s, unimportant to the Whips, such as myself, attempted to make our voices heard we were prevented by the Whips' Office by various means, and even during the seriousness of war, such means are still continued. One had supposed that the Conservative Whips' Office was by way of being representative of a democratic party, within which every Member had an equal chance, and where one was not hindered in expressing one's views. Here let me say that I am well aware that the "old school tie" caucus will contemptuously dismiss the contribution I am now making as sour grapes. Well, let them do it; it will make no difference to the facts that I intend to put before this House.
The Whips' Office being the main stepping-stone to all other Government appointments, is it to be wondered at, realising how Conservative Whips are chosen, that many key positions to-day are held by "jolly good fellows"? But when you come to examine their ability for such vital war-time responsibility, that is a very different matter. There are first-class men in this House of Commons to-day who, although they may not conform to the outward conventional standards required by the Whips' Office, and although they may have few friends and no relations in high places, possess attributes which would help this country to avoid defeat, and which it would appear, to my simple mind, are more important than being just a "jolly good fellow." I refer to attributes such as efficiency, alertness, driving power and toughness. How many of the millstones hanging round the Prime Minister's neck to-day have those qualities? One senior Minister, by being in office with both Baldwin and Chamberlain, has lost all his independence. He

now agrees with everybody. He was head of a vital war Department that has important and essential work to do day and night, but he had become so complacent that even when matters were serious he used to go home to the seaside nearly every night and week-end. That Minister is still in the Government to-day.
The Government Whips' Office is nearly as powerful as any Prime Minister, because, as I have indicated, it is this office that suggests and provides for all Government key positions. This office has the inestimable advantage of being comparatively inconspicuous. It is the only Government Department that does not have to give an account of its stewardship. It is more silent than the so-called "Silent Service." The power that it wields behind the scenes is positively extraordinary. It has been observed that the most independent of characters get drawn under its spell sooner or later. Has the Prime Minister been affected? Our system of Government is such that a Prime Minister, of necessity, becomes dependent on his Whips' Office. The Whips' Office provides the barometer of political weather. It warns the Prime Minister if a legislative storm is brewing, and suggests procedure for overcoming it. The untimely end of a Government is often avoided by the tactics of the Whips' Office. Its advice is taken on Ministerial appointments, and, as the Whips have always been sticklers for team work, one realises that they naturally lean towards men who will create no trouble once they are within the inner circle. No man worked harder or more successfully than the right hon. and gallant Member for Rugby to keep the present Prime Minister out of office when the right hon. and gallant Member was Chief Whip. Nevertheless, it is significant that when the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister, he not only kept on the right hon. and gallant Member as Chief Whip, but eventually put him in supreme charge of our Army: the very same man who was in the inner councils of the Baldwin-cum-Chamberlain rule of unpreparedness, the same man who showed such faulty judgment in being a party to excluding the present Prime Minister from office when his influence might have done immense good, and might even have saved this country from war.
The Baldwin-Chamberlain influence does not end there, for, although in the


present Government there is a sprinkling of Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists who have not been tainted with the influence, as many as 50 Ministers who held office when ineptitude and complacency let us down so badly are still in the Government to-day. In this latest shuffle round that we heard about on Monday only one of the old gang has been removed, and that has been set off by the fact that one of what I might call the new gang has also been removed and he has been dispatched to the wilderness of the B.B.C. The "old school ties" are still bunched together to the extent of 60 per cent. of the present Government. They hold 60 per cent. of the key positions.
One is entitled to ask why should the products of the "Margesson school," that has always been satisfied with muddling-along standards, provided that the pupils were of the approved type, suddenly, miraculously be able to transform themselves into men of energy, imagination and driving power? It is asking too much. Only a very few of these legacies are fitted to cope with the present crisis. It is very difficult to teach old dogs new tricks. Only a few of these old dogs are likely to learn the new tricks. It is fresh minds, with new tricks, that is going to win this war. Therefore, I ask, is it not time that the Baldwin-Chamberlain old boys reunion broke up and were replaced by all and sundry, regardless of the colour of their ties, provided that they are of outstanding ability in particular spheres and possess the necessary thoroughness and ruthlessness to better the Hun?

Mr. Mathers: If there is to be no reply to the hon. and gallant Member's criticism of the Whips' Department, with special reference, as the hon. and gallant Member definitely showed, to the Government Whips' Department, I rise to remove the possibility of any misunderstanding. To-day, with the House constituted as it is, with Members on this side not being looked upon as definitely in opposition to the Government, I simply want to make it perfectly clear that when the hon. and gallant Member refers to the way in which Whips are appointed by the party to which he "belongs, his description

does not apply to those Whips who are Members of the Labour party. Labour party Whips are appointed by democratic vote of the whole membership of that party in this House. It is a pleasure for me also to Be "able to say that those members of this party who at present are acting as Whips on the Government side have that imprimatur placed upon their appointment by the fact that they also had their appointments arrived at under that proper democratic principle.

Mr. Mander: I only rose with the same object as my hon. Friend, namely, to clear up any possible doubt. He used a phrase which I did not quite follow. He said that he and his hon. Friends were not definitely in opposition to the Government. Is that really a fair and comprehensive statement of the position? Would it not be fairer to say that he and his hon. Friends are supporters of the Government?

Mr. Mathers: I wished to indicate that, although we are sitting here, we were not in opposition to the Government in the way in which we are generally looked upon, when the House is normally constituted, as the Government Opposition. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) recognises, as do all of us, the position in which the major parties in this House are operating at the present time.

Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend really has not met the point. Does he still maintain that the correct description is '' not definitely in opposition"? Would he not say that he and his friends support the Government, in which one of the outstanding ornaments is the Lord Privy Seal?

Mr. Mathers: I am sure that it is not necessary for me to make the position any more clear. I hope that it is well under stood how and where we stand, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton will, in the same way, make his own position clear.

Mr. Mander: We who sit on this Bench are whole-hearted supporters of His Majesty's Government.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1.Finance Act, 1941.
 2.Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941.
 3. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1941.

 4. Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1941.
 5.Repair of War Damage Act, 1941.
 6.London Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1941.
 7. Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Act, 1941.
 8. Portsmouth Water Act, 1941.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.